e pie”. By calling the loans sub-prime, you foster the idea that the people obtaining these loans are sub-par themselves!. The interest rates may be a bit higher, but the loans allow people with no or poor credit histories to have an opportunity that was not available in the past.

Some of these people will undoubtedly be in foreclosure. But for every loan that goes bad, there will be many others that will be paid in full. Losing o

I was reading a recent New York Times (www.nyt.com) article by Sam Roberts that confirmed my feelings and beliefs about several trends. Roberts stated that, for the first time, one in three New York City residents now own his/her own house or condo or co-op apartment. More than a million people have a real stake in the future of the City as well as in the country. Home is not only where the heart is but also where the money is.

This trend has occurred across all racial and ethnic groups. I was very interested in two reasons given for the increase; the lifting of rent regulation and the availability of low-interest and sub-prime mortgages. As a New York City property manager and owner for more than thirty years, I have seen how artificial rent regulation has put a stranglehold on the entire area’s economic economy.

Since rents were kept artificially below market rates for most of New York’s rental housing stock, there was no incentive for people to buy their own homes. I have seen young single people move into a one-bedroom apartment, marry, have children and never leave that first apartment because of the great “deal” they had. Their entire economic life was tied to that artificially low rent. With the elimination of controls on most new rentals, the market is now free to determine when it is a good time to buy.

Low interest loans to more and more families have also encouraged more people to buy. Roberts’ article goes on to state that home ownership since 1990 has increased among African-Americans from 21% to 28%, Hispanics from 12% to 16% and Asians from 31% to 40%. How could one call mortgages ‘sub-prime’ when they have allowed economically disadvantaged Americans and recent immigrants to own “a piece of the pie”. By calling the loans sub-prime, you foster the idea that the people obtaining these loans are sub-par themselves!. The interest rates may be a bit higher, but the loans allow people with no or poor credit histories to have an opportunity that was not available in the past.

Some of these people will undoubtedly be in foreclosure. But for every loan that goes bad, there will be many others that will be paid in full. Losing o

This trend has occurred across all racial and ethnic groups. I was very interested in two reasons given for the increase; the lifting of rent regulation and the availability of low-interest and sub-prime mortgages. As a New York City property manager and owner for more than thirty years, I have seen how artificial rent regulation has put a stranglehold on the entire area’s economic economy.

Since rents were kept artificially below market rates for most of New York’s rental housing stock, there was no incentive for people to buy their own homes. I have seen young single people move into a one-bedroom apartment, marry, have children and never leave that first apartment because of the great “deal” they had. Their entire economic life was tied to that artificially low rent. With the elimination of controls on most new rentals, the market is now free to determine when it is a good time to buy.

Low interest loans to more and more families have also encouraged more people to buy. Roberts’ article goes on to state that home ownership since 1990 has increased among African-Americans from 21% to 28%, Hispanics from 12% to 16% and Asians from 31% to 40%. How could one call mortgages ‘sub-prime’ when they have allowed economically disadvantaged Americans and recent immigrants to own “a piece of the pie”. By calling the loans sub-prime, you foster the idea that the people obtaining these loans are sub-par themselves!. The interest rates may be a bit higher, but the loans allow people with no or poor credit histories to have an opportunity that was not available in the past.

Some of these people will undoubtedly be in foreclosure. But for every loan that goes bad, there will be many others that will be paid in full. Losing o

market rates for most of New York’s rental housing stock, there was no incentive for people to buy their own homes. I have seen young single people move into a one-bedroom apartment, marry, have children and never leave that first apartment because of the great “deal” they had. Their entire economic life was tied to that artificially low rent. With the elimination of controls on most new rentals, the market is now free to determine when it is a good time to buy.

Low interest loans to more and more families have also encouraged more people to buy. Roberts’ article goes on to state that home ownership since 1990 has increased among African-Americans from 21% to 28%, Hispanics from 12% to 16% and Asians from 31% to 40%. How could one call mortgages ‘sub-prime’ when they have allowed economically disadvantaged Americans and recent immigrants to own “a piece of the pie”. By calling the loans sub-prime, you foster the idea that the people obtaining these loans are sub-par themselves!. The interest rates may be a bit higher, but the loans allow people with no or poor credit histories to have an opportunity that was not available in the past.

Some of these people will undoubtedly be in foreclosure. But for every loan that goes bad, there will be many others that will be paid in full. Losing o

hen it is a good time to buy.

Low interest loans to more and more families have also encouraged more people to buy. Roberts’ article goes on to state that home ownership since 1990 has increased among African-Americans from 21% to 28%, Hispanics from 12% to 16% and Asians from 31% to 40%. How could one call mortgages ‘sub-prime’ when they have allowed economically disadvantaged Americans and recent immigrants to own “a piece of the pie”. By calling the loans sub-prime, you foster the idea that the people obtaining these loans are sub-par themselves!. The interest rates may be a bit higher, but the loans allow people with no or poor credit histories to have an opportunity that was not available in the past.

Some of these people will undoubtedly be in foreclosure. But for every loan that goes bad, there will be many others that will be paid in full. Losing o

e pie”. By calling the loans sub-prime, you foster the idea that the people obtaining these loans are sub-par themselves!. The interest rates may be a bit higher, but the loans allow people with no or poor credit histories to have an opportunity that was not available in the past.

Some of these people will undoubtedly be in foreclosure. But for every loan that goes bad, there will be many others that will be paid in full. Losing one’s home is an awful experience, but look at the thousands of other folks who would have never had a chance if it weren’t for those loans.

Every time a family can own the place they call home, they are better citizens. Neighborhoods become safer and better maintained. The residents take a more active role in government and how the municipality taxes and spends their money. They have a direct stake in the outcome. Thomas Jefferson believed that America should be a country of small farmers who owned their land. America didn’t become that; but it is a land where more and more of its citizens own the place they call home. And, that is a very good thing.