Can Somebody Explain The "Lottery" Thing?

[K8-EEE]

Don't people already own these houses and this land? What the hell was THAT about? HOMESTEADING? WTF? I missed the speach and am trying to make sense of the transcript...sure looks like a lot of nonsense to me!

You know their big excuse for not building with renewable energy is always the cost of replacing exisitng infrastructure, so let's have it -- solar powered buildings, biodeisel stations, the works! What is their excuse to NOT be environmentally responsible this time I wonder.

[maxsolomon]

1. SOMEONE owns the houses & land

it is likely not the tenants.

[SoCalDem]

4. and people who did own their older homes free and clear

have technically "abandoned" them by 'leaving them'..so eminent domain will kick in to "salvage" property ..and put it to a "better use".:puke:

[MercutioATC]

9. Completely untrue.

You don't "abandon" a property by complying with a mandatory evacuation...

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

12. Legally, yes...but eminent domain will rear its ugly head here

I would bet my life on it..

[MercutioATC]

15. Except for parcels near the levees needed to expand them, you're on.

I'll take that bet.

Too many eyes are on the process for them to start seizing private land without damn good cause.

[SoCalDem]

16. Pretty soon, we will all have careened into the "next" disaster

or returned to paying attention to the war.. The public attention span is very short.. the press will soon tire of the New orleans story, and deals will be made out of camera-range..

This will take YEARS...

[MercutioATC]

19. Agreed, but this is something that people will keep with them a long time.

Even when attention shifts, I don't believe he's going to be able to start seizing private property.

Especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling, it's a hot-button issue and I don't think it's going to go away.

[SoCalDem]

2. Republicans do not want poor people returning

so a limited number of 'non-astronomically' priced housing units may be built..(not enough for all who previously lived there)..and of course the most toxic land will be undesireable, so that land may be "available" for homesteading (if you don't mind your kids getting leukemia)..

It's all a con-job:(

[MercutioATC]

6. Did you not listen to the speech?

Bush mentioned giving away federally-owned land and asking the lottery winners to commit to building on that land. This isn't some upscale development project disguised as low-income housing.

[SoCalDem]

8. If you have no money and no job, how will you "rebuild"?

:(

[MercutioATC]

10. Most of us use mortages...

Federal low-rate mortgages would probably have to be part of the package.

[MercutioATC]

3. He was speaking of federally-owned land.

Obviously, private land remains the property of the owners.

[Inland]

5. Does anyone know what federally owned land he was talking about?

My guess would be national parks; the more valuable the land, the more Bush would want to give it away.

[MercutioATC]

7. No idea.

If it's being used for homesteading, however, it's still a good idea (and hardly without precedent).

[Inland]

11. Well, it depends on the land, and the need.

Why is there a need for LAND all the sudden, in an area where plenty of people are looking to leave?

Sounds like Bush wants to trade people the national park parcel for a plot in NO that would have to be cleaned up.

[MercutioATC]

14. Well, he can't give away privately-owned land...

If he's going to try a homesteading program, he's going to have to use previously undeveloped land...

...people are always free to buy privately-owned land on the open market.

[Inland]

17. Of course he can give away privately owned land.

All he has to do is BUY it first. You think there aren't plenty of plots for sale right now? Seems to me that it would provide relief for two for the cost of one, namely, returning part of the investment of the victim and allowing another victim a home.

But giving away federal assets for free is so much easier: it gets rid of that national park, leaves the junk on the private land, and costs nothing that shows up on any balance sheet.

[uncle ray]

22. and i suspect they'll buy it for almost nothing

by sticking the property owners with the cleanup bill if they want to claim their toxic land, regardless where the toxicity came from. so many people will simply not come back to pay thousands to clean their property before even thinking about rebuilding, so the gov't cleans it and foots the bill(make that check payable to Halliburton), then does whatever it wants with it's new property.

[Inland]

23. Someone is going to buy it for almost nothing.

I suspect you are right: the land is toxic, even where it isn't dangerous simply from being underwater or part of the disappearing LA coastline.

But there's the rub to resettling these areas: without government action to remediate the disaster, the land really IS worthless.

Anyone who doesn't think that there is going to be a competent rebuilding is going to sell. Anyone who can't take the risk is going to sell. And it isn't going to be for much.

Suppose you are in charge of the fed or state govs. If the government is going to actually try to fix up these areas, then it SHOULD get in the market, taking all these properties off the hands of people who want to flee. Why? Because the government should have more faith in itself. It has inside information on its own competence. It can wait for a market upturn and sell to willing buyers. It can consolidate parcels, build it's own infrastructure.

Why the feds would have to give away a bird sanctuary or railroad easment of value to homesteaders is beyond me. That isn't cleaning up. That's running away from the damage.

[Inland]

18. dupe

[comsymp]

13. Exactly. This is not a new practice in the US -

Hell, it was a staple of Westward Expansion, including in OK, though that didn't get the press that the Land Runs (the Cruise/Kidman thing from Far And Away - and the basis for the nickname "Sooners", IIRC) did.

[Deb]

20. I took it to mean a lottery on gov lands

but with this thieving group, it wouldn't surprise me if a lottery was done with ticket sales.

[creeksneakers2]

21. My guess

The storm and flood will creates lots of HUD foreclosures. I think that's what is going to be given away. Whitehouse.gov says properties would be given in exchange for sweat equity. The properties probably won't be worth much more than the cost of repairing them.

Sounds like a nice program, but probably not the give everybody who wants one a nice house entitlement that it sounds like it is.

At Whitehouse.gov:

The President Proposed An Urban Homesteading Initiative To Provide A New Beginning For Lower-Income Evacuees. Homesteading will allow evacuees to occupy a government-owned home at a favorable mortgage rate, in exchange for their personal investment of sweat equity in the property. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the Federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery. In return, they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization like Habitat for Humanity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, local governments, and public housing authorities, will support the development of homes on Federal property in New Orleans and cities across the region, and will encourage nonprofit organizations to commit properties as well. Homeownership is one of the great strengths of any community, and it must be a central part of our vision for the revival of this region.