xt7jsx647k2q https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7jsx647k2q/data/mets.xml The Kentucky Kernel Kentucky -- Lexington The Kentucky Kernel 1976-01-26 Earlier Titles: Idea of University of Kentucky, The State College Cadet newspapers English Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. The Kentucky Kernel The Kentucky Kernel, January 26, 1976 text The Kentucky Kernel, January 26, 1976 1976 1976-01-26 2020 true xt7jsx647k2q section xt7jsx647k2q Vol. W" No- 99 K

Monday. January 26. 1976

ENTUCKY

21‘

an independent student newspaper

a...

University of Kentucky
Laihstqnz..l

.“s—u..~.-.-w ‘_ _. _. .._ 1‘ I.

spectrum

Opinions from inside and outside the University.

BY Eugene Morris

Nev.- York Times News Service

Articles about ”slum lords” and
housing scandals sharply emphasize
ifhe propensity of the news media to trot
mt the usual whipping boys and abuse
them mercilessly while refusing even to
allude to he underlying causes of
housing-program failures.

The media never mention the true
villains «the people for whom housing
programs are fashioned who are
basically and overwhelmingly
responsible for their failure. They are

the underclass of society
euphemistically referred to as
"multiproblem individuals or
families.”

They are notof any one race, religion
or ethnic background but draw their
numbers from all groups. Irrespective
of who they are or where they come
from, they are the ones responsible for
crime, vandalism,~ iuvenile
delinquency, etc. ——they, in large
measure. account for the destructive
elements in our society.

Articles speak of the Federal Housing
and Urban Development Section 235
housing-financing mechanism and the
failure to realize the high hopes held for
it when it was first enacted in 1966 as

part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great
Society program.

The program permits the federal
government to insure mortgage loans
on one-family homes, and subsidizes
the interest rate down to one per cent. It
enables low-income families, usually
slum dwellers, to buy their own homes
for a small down payment (around
$200) and low carrying charges com-
mensurab with welfare allowances or
low earnings.

Hundreds of thousands of these
homes were rehabilitated and sold to
poor families throughoutthe country --
the program had relatively little im-
pact in New York City where its
companion 236 program, aimed at
multifamily housing, was more widely
used.

We were at last to have a program
that would provide a real incentive for
the peer to upgrade their living con-
ditions and, through pride of ownership,
maintain them properly, gradually
making inroads into the slums. Well, it
just didn‘t work out that way.

in most cases, the houses quickly fell
into disrepair or were deliberately
vandalized and payments were not met.
resulting in foreclosure and eventual
take-over by the federal government
under its mortgage insurance com-
mitment.

'\
.-- I. .,;i _ I
:F?’\‘

The concept, originally praised as a
new departure in social engineering of
housing for the poor that would expose
red-lining by banks refusal to make
mortgage loans in certain areas as a
banetul pra ctice. resulted in a debacle.
The government lost billions of dollars
and now (wns vast numbers of empty.
dilapidated and vandalized buildings or
vacant lots where the buildings were
torn down as public hazards or were
iust burned down.

In evaluating the disaster, news-
media reports stress the inefficiency of
the Department of Housing and Urban
Developmen ta nd its failure to preperly
supervise crooked real estate operators
who rehabilitabd and sold the houses
and the greed oflendinginstitutions who
financed the houses, without a word
aboutthe people who bought them, as if
the buyers were paragons of virtue.
innocent victims of profit-seeking
entrepreneurs.

But even if it had been run with
maximum efficiency, with no
dishonesty or excess profit-taking at
all, the program would, nevertheless.
have collapsed because of the people
who bOught and living in the housing.

Of course. a large number of the
houses are well-maintained with
payments kept up to date, but the
program has established that the herd

core multiproblem family cannot be
helped by such outside assistance.
Their problems go much deeper than
that.

To be sure, programs like this are
worthwhile. They contribute to
upgrading families capable of it and
have a beneficial impact over the long
pull. But realism about the magnitude
of the problems does not support eX»
cessive expectations.

Under these circumstances when
lending institutions redline an area
containing an excessive number of
multiproblem families, they are
iustified in doing so to avoid risking
their stockholders’ and depositors’
money. Or‘y government can assume
this risk since it is a public problem and
unfeasible for private enterprise.

Some day, maybe only in the distant
future, our knowledge of the chemistry
of the human brain, glands, nervous
sysbm, etc. will enable us to treat these
sick members of society, but we cer-
tainly do not know enough yet.
At least. one thing iscertain: We cannot
deal with these deep-seated human
problems by enacting superficial
programs like Section 235 and putting
the blame on scapegoats.

Eocene J. Morris is a New York
lawver.

... w- .“m —

t—THE KENTUCKY KERNEL. Monday. January 8. 1376

THE LOUVRE

A film showing
Tuesday, January 27,
Student Center, Room 206, 3:00 p.m.
No admission charge.

Male and Female

Gmmcubbyexuﬂaxui
rairstylisls togiveyou
mumxwwwmt