NationStates Jolt Archive


The Urban Homestead Proposal: A Great Idea Revived

Lotus Puppy
17-09-2005, 02:27
I didn't watch Pres. Bush's speech last night, as I assumed it'd be mostly some inspirational words and rehashing of what just happened. Yet I had it on the TV, and ran to watch snippets when Bush proposed legislation. It was what I feared: the usual mumbo jumbo that the government says to try and be all things to all people, and strains itself (and its credibility) in the process. But I fell in love with one idea that took the fat off government.
The Urban Homestead act is, as far as I can tell, a reincarnation of the original Homestead Act of the late 1800s. It gave 160 acres to anyone out West that farmed the land for five years, free of charge. At first glance, it seems like the regular social manipulation of the government to encourage Western settlement based on grants. Yet it did an important job: it placed the federal government as the custodian of land in the West, keeping it only because no one else bought it. It did not act as the master of the West, unlike its failed attempt in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
The government, of course, is far bigger than in the 19th century, and holds a lot of land. Much of it is in the form of public housing projects. Yet housing projects are human cesspools. The War on Poverty encourages poverty, because it does not teach the poor the self sufficiency they need. You may be rich when a pile of money lands on your door, but can you stay rich? Make even more money? That's the skills the government inherently teaches its dependents.
This Urban Homestead Act, however, is a godsend. If more people have property, they will learn how to maintain it, and not just file a report when a repair is needed. Even if a housing project is bought by a more affluent landlord, self sufficiency will still be taught now that the owner is an investor looking to make profit, not a nanny that keeps babies in the crib. Most importantly, however, it puts the government where it belongs. It is not an overlord, nor is it a babysitter. It is a guardian.
I hope Congress passes this with esteem, and I also hope that this will be expanded nationwide. And it may even include federal land in the West, bringing this full circle.
Pepe Dominguez
17-09-2005, 02:32
I'm pretty sure Jack Kemp had a similar idea a while back.. no one took it too seriously. This should be interesting..
Ashmoria
17-09-2005, 02:48
i hope they do it and that its not messed up too too badly. its a tremendous opportunity for the working poor to get ahead.
Super-power
17-09-2005, 03:20
If this Homestead Proposal would pass it would truly be a wonderful opportunity
Lotus Puppy
17-09-2005, 03:29
Oh, people, I forgot an important part. The land will be given for free, but by a lottery system. In fact, the part I'm not too fond of is that they are eligible for easier loans from HUD. I must say that HUD is a bit better because they provide loans, not grants. However, they are at interest rates lower than market price, and because they control the nation's monetary supply, they can pump too much liquidity into the market, spurring inflation. But other than that, the plan is great.
Karaska
17-09-2005, 03:31
I hope they only pick people who have proven themselves I don't want a bunch of drug dealers to use their free corn field as their drug hide out :D
Lotus Puppy
17-09-2005, 03:37
I hope they only pick people who have proven themselves I don't want a bunch of drug dealers to use their free corn field as their drug hide out :D
They probably will do that as they have a degree of control over who gets the land.
Gymoor II The Return
17-09-2005, 04:25
--snip--

So, basically, you're saying that when a liberal gives the people something for nothing, it's a hand-out, but when a conservative does the same, it's a "responsibility-growing" cog in the "ownership society"?
Ekland
17-09-2005, 04:34
So, basically, you're saying that when a liberal gives the people something for nothing, it's a hand-out, but when a conservative does the same, it's a "responsibility-growing" cog in the "ownership society"?

Yes, because Liberals try to get elected time and time again by milking the impoverished tit of the lowest common denominator of society. They have incentive to make sure the poor stay poor and voting Democrat. As a result housing projects ARE "human cesspools" and those on welfare stay on welfare.

THIS however, is a whole other ball game and a pretty damn good idea in my opinion.
Lotus Puppy
18-09-2005, 02:16
So, basically, you're saying that when a liberal gives the people something for nothing, it's a hand-out, but when a conservative does the same, it's a "responsibility-growing" cog in the "ownership society"?
Sort of. I have stated that I prefer the government to sell the land, but the Homestead Act works fine. You see, it is a one-time deal. There is a fixed amount of land out there, but most other things can be created. So long as the government does not ever buy back or seize the land for any reason other than defense, than this is fine, if not perfect.
Corneliu
18-09-2005, 03:22
I think it is a good idea and I can't wait to read the text of the bill that will be debated in Congress.