You know very well why you advocate for justice and liberty just as I know very well why I advocate homeownership — and it is not because Presidents Bush, Reagan, or Clinton also did so.

The opposite of being against homeownership is to be for rental housing, which is perfectly all right. Not everyone wants to be a homeowner or can be a homeowner. But suggesting that all Latinos should rent because homeownership is wrong makes no more sense than to be against Latinos owning their own businesses because so many of them are destined to fail anyway. Don’t you think that
all of us, including Latinos, deserve the right to think for ourselves and to decide for ourselves what is best for us?

I invite you to visit my website and read why I feel so fervently about this. More than thirty years ago, I bought a home for my Mother through a HUD program. The transformation that my Mother underwent as a result of becoming a homeowner made me a very happy and proud person. She cherished and took care of her home and enjoyed it until the very last days of her life. For her homeownership meant having a place of her own, a place she could call home, decorate to her liking, and walk proudly among her neighbors. The home also became the foundation for my sister’s future as she is now doing quite well on her own in San Antonio.

Renting for Latinos is often not the best of experiences — they often pay more than non-Latinos and get inferior quality shelter; they are often restricted from playing the radio, inviting others, having the kids play outside, and have to put up with so many restrictions and even unfair treatment. Is that what we want? Just as we advocate for justice and liberty should we not advocate for safe, decent, and appealing housing for Latinos, regardless if it is rental or homeownership housing?

I enjoy and value your passion, drive, and intelligence. Let’s join hands in working together for Latino justice and liberty by finding common ground, rather than letting those who will impede our progress succeed in dividing us.

To give you more insights into what I advocate because of my own life experiences and quest for justice for Latinos here is a sample of what I have written and posted in my website.

Homeownership and Its Relationship to National Housing Policy
Posted on 08/15/2009
Professor Thomas J. Sugrue has written an stimulating article advocating that renting should be the new American Dream ['The New American Dream: Renting,' The Wall Street Journal, August 15].

Since its inception, national housing policy has recognized Sugrue’s premise that homeownership is not a realistic goal for many people. It omits any reference to rental or homeownership housing and succinctly states that “The objective of national housing policy shall be to reaffirm the long-established commitment to decent, safe, and sanitary housing for every American.” However, Sugrue’s in-depth research can equally be used to support the view that homeownership can well remain an American dream and that government programs not only fueled this ambition but also resulted in unprecedented prosperity for the housing industry and the entire economy.

For example, Professor Sugrue indicates that countries such as Spain and Italy have higher rates of homeownership than the U.S. but only because homes there are often purchased with the support of extended families and are places to settle for the long term. Professor Sugrue fails to point out that one of the government programs he wishes to curtail, insuring the basic 30-year fixed prime mortgage loan, was instituted at a time in American history when settling for the long term — having a place called home and cherishing it — was precisely a national objective. What needs to be curtailed or better regulated is the purchasing and financing of homes strictly for speculative and short-term profit gains.

Professor Sugrue correctly points out that in the last boom year, 2006, nearly 53% of Blacks and more than 47% of Hispanics assumed subprime mortgages, loans that were costly and inferior to prime mortgage loans. The Wall Street Journal itself has previously reported that in 2006 and 2007, as many as 50 to 60 percent of borrowers who received subprime loans could have qualified for less-expensive conventional loans that would have provided the basis for successful homeownership.

In fact, the subprime crisis was caused primarily by the massive provision of highly unregulated mortgage loans to millions of Americans, regardless of income, race, or ethnic origin. These inappropriate loans often required little or no income verification, lacked clarity, and contained hidden fees and costs. Last year, when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced the approval of new rules that prohibit predatory lending practices, he emphasized that unfair or deceptive acts and practices by lenders [not government] had resulted in the extension of many high-cost loans that were inappropriate for, or which misled, thousands of borrowers.

Professor Sugrue accurately states that mortgage securitization and subprime lending made it possible for more Americans than ever to live the American dream. In fact, these lending tools can continue to create viable homeownership opportunities but only if they are well regulated and used properly and ethically. Sustainable homeownership — the real American dream — can once again be achieved by making mortgage loans the right way, especially through home buyer education and counseling, appropriate loan terms and conditions, affordable down-payments, and government assistance for first-time homebuyers.

Fixing National Housing Policies
Posted on 08/08/2009
The Washington Post [“Fixing Fannie Mae,” editorial, Aug. 7] persists in suggesting that the homeownership gains in recent years primarily reflect the extension of credit to people who couldn’t afford it. In fact, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers have reported, as many as 50 to 60 percent of borrowers who received subprime loans could have qualified for less-expensive conventional loans.

In addition, highly unregulated mortgage loans were made to millions of Americans, regardless of income, race, or ethnic origin. Often, these inappropriate and costly loans required little or no income verification, lacked clarity, and contained hidden fees and costs.

The Post also complacently implies that it would be okay for the national rate of homeownership to recede to 1985 levels “when American society was pretty stable”. In 1985, the rate of Hispanic homeownership was only 41.1% and that of African-Americans was 44.4%. Is this the level of national stability and progress that the Post wishes to promote?

The unsubstantiated claims that recent homeownership gains are largely the result of extending credit to people who could not pay for it and that making mortgage loans to low-income minorities caused the housing crisis continue to hamper a concerted national effort to resolve it.

Gracias por tu atencion.

The argument you are using, is the same argument that was being used during Alberto Gonzales’ AG confirmation hearing. What sort of Latino opposes an initiative that is meant to advance our interest?

I didn’t buy it then and refuse be force-fed the usual claptrap about how it was suppose to be for the good of the people.

As Cornell West puts it brilliantly; “racial reasoning is seductive, but fundamentally flawed.”

I am well aware of the plight of the Latino community and how many Latinos face numerous barriers that prevent them from buying a home. Since this initiative came from Bush, his initiative became a rallying call fair housing advocates to make a difference. Yet at the same time, the corporate sector, who have been keen to exploit any opportunity to integrate itself into a $900 billion untapped market, embraced the concept with equal enthusiasm.

It is easier to be a cheerleader when times are good, but at the end of the day, Latinos were one of the most affected by the subprime crises and all it has done now is fan and fuel the channeling of rage toward the most vulnerable and degraded members of the community, especially the undocumented.

So yes, some in the Hispanic leadership must share some of the blame. If they prefer to deflect their role so they can sleep better at night, while people continue to lose their home and continue to be demonized by nativist, so be it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to this issue. As you said, we leave it up to the people to decide.

At the same time, I do urge you to more seriously consider heeding the suggestion I made to you before, namely that “Empowering Latinos to make informed decisions, however, requires that we do our utmost to make sure that Latinos are provided with full and accurate information regarding critical issues impacting their lives.”

As an example of this, in your follow-up article you indicate that “After writing the first part of this series, Alejandro Becerra was quick to point out that the Wall Street Journal article I used as the foundation for part one of the series was “substantially … inaccurate information” because the article placed the blame on “President Bush because he supported broadening homeownership.”

That is unfortunately not accurate as you neither quote me correctly or carefully read what I actually wrote, which is that your first article “relies substantially on inaccurate information published by the Wall Street Journal. According to Karl Rove (Wall Street op-ed, Jan [that actually refers to an op-ed article by Karl Rove not to the Wall Street article you used as the foundation for your first article], some critics continue to blame President Bush because he supported broadening homeownership. However, Rove points out that the President’s goal “was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders.” It is then hard to reconcile how the Wall Street Journal justified publishing a front-page article three days earlier that unfairly chastised advocates of Hispanic homeownership for seeking to achieve the same goal.

If your readers doubt that is what I wrote, I invite them to read my comments regarding your first article directly from your website. Again, it is fair enough for you to try to blame anyone for luring and even encouraging Latino borrowers to obtain bad loans made accessible by reckless lenders. But you have to substantiate that argument, and not simply chastise anyone who simply advocates that those who can afford to buy a home should be able to do so, if they at a minimum are well prepared for the responsibilities of homeownership and are well informed about obtaining the best possible and affordable loan for which they qualify and is provided under sound underwriting criteria.

Great post. It is amazing how people like to blame the homeowners for having signed poor deals. Yet they were so pushed: newspapers, televisions, banks, everyone recommended it and said that “change was good” – “only their fear was holding them back” and other psychobabble like this.

I didn’t fall for it but I did fall for “investing in my career” – i.e. running up cards (at cheap interest, fortunately) to buy things that would advance me at work but that the universities wouldn’t pay for, i.e. moving expenses, research expenses, conference expenses, equipment and materials expenses. We were *constantly* told that it was an “investment” and that if we didn’t take on this risk we weren’t “serious.”

There are so many actors, wrong turns, bad policy moves, etc etc that got us where we are now. I only mentioned one policy, I look at it as the starting off point. But there were other policies that were passed along the way that either had a direct and indirect affect.

But I agree, most of the blame does belong to the private mortgage companies and Wall Street.

Inasmuch as Fannie and Freddie were the initiators of the rapidly rising housing market, I am sure that overall they were a small part of the problem. Most of the blame belongs to private mortgage companies and Wall Street.