California ramps up the crazy, wants to own 45% of your home

[Nathan Gesner]

The California Dream For All program wants to help minorities own a home. How will they do it? By purchasing 45% of the home! The buyer gets in cheap because they only have to pay for 55% of the home, but then Big Brother will own 45% of their property.

How do you think this will turn out? 

https://www.businessinsider.co...

[Nathan Gesner]

Originally posted by @Caroline Gerardo:

I read a couple articles, and the actual Bill. It's a nice idea. I can think of people who might benefit, BUT ... the program doesn't seem like it was planned or the details, ins and outs worked out. Say a teacher and a retail worker want to buy in South LA, they make $59000. Entry price is $450000 They will have a PITI of $1669 verses $2721 and qualify for the lower payment. They could not buy without this assistance. When they sell the program recoups the gain or their $202500. These programs assistance usually have higher than market rates to send back money to the fund. They allow certain lenders to originate with their granular rules: income limits, debt to income ratio limits, and in this case it says race. I wonder how long before someone sues over race? What would be used to qualify on race?

And what happens when you lower the bar of entry? Foreclosure. People that pay 55% value on a product will not care for the home or make good neighbors the same way someone would if they were 100% responsible. And how many people will move to California just to take advantage of this program? Why are tax payers responsible for subsidizing someone's purchase? What happens if the market crashes and home values drop 30% again?

Too many red flags.

If we subsidize someone's "right" to own a home, why not subsidize their "right" to food, clothing, transportation, and everything else? Where does it end? Answer: communism.