Housing and health hype

The non-profits, government agencies, and foundations are thoroughly invested in the housing/health/wealth gospel and it controls every aspect of funding from the seed grant to do the study from the foundation, to the energizing and funding and marketing of the non-profits, and the distribution of your tax money to rehab or create "affordable housing." There are huge holes in this idea, dream, nightmare, fantasy of upside down reasoning.

Housing generally represents an American family’s greatest single expenditure, and, for homeowners, their most significant source of wealth. Given its importance, it is not surprising that factors related to housing have the potential to help—or harm—our health in major ways.

The idea that a decent, affordable home not only builds families, strengthens neighborhoods, but improves health, provides access to better food, which makes people choose more fruits and vegetables, and loose weight, and want to use bike paths which are better in safe neighborhoods and go past good schools built according to green regulations which in turn improves the health and wealth and the neighborhood, yada, yada, it goes on and on and on. Reading through this gospel of faith in the partnerships of government, businesses, non-profits, church groups, and academe is enough to make a sane person scream STOP! So don't try to read too many annual reports of funding streams at one time.

You're not going to believe this, but the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation has actually done a study on the benefits of recess ($18 million)

In 2007, RWJF issued “Recess Rules,” a report that named school recess the single most effective strategy for increasing physical activity among children. Yet recess remains undervalued as little funding is dedicated to improving the quality of recess.

If this follows their other reports, there will be millions from the federal government shoveled into state coffers to study and support recess--but for obesity management, and green regulations, with a possible tie-in to housing if they can find one.

Occasionally there are major breakthroughs in legislation or public health that significantly affect vast numbers of people. The 1964 Civil Rights Act comes to mind. Or the polio vaccine. Fluoridation of water. Addition of various vitamins to milk and flour. Standard pure water and plumbing codes. The interstate highway system. USDA meat inspection standards. The Homestead Act. But even these all had negative consequences and didn't benefit everyone. I'm sure the Native Americans weren't thrilled with the homesteaders. The interstate highway system probably destroyed lots of prime farm land and made developers disgustingly rich in the cities as vast neighborhoods were condemned for public use.

No, I'm talking about our most recent boondoggle--the fueling of the housing boom between 1995-2006 to "empower" low and moderate income families and more minorities. According to USAToday 49% of the increase in homeowners were minority, and many were not ready financially for a mortgage. Many of the community leaders and government officials pushing this were quite wealthy themselves, never really stopping to realize that they weren't wealthy because of their home--stucco, brick or vinyl clad. Very few saw their dreams dashed because of predatory lending by banks or fraud (about 9%), but by their own judgement and poor managing skills. Then wealth investors got into the act through various loop holes.

And we still have neighborhoods with bad housing stock, boarded up houses, druggies and vagrants wandering the streets, women and children living without a husband and father in the home, poor schools, bad transportation, and sprawling suburbs. Trillions and trillions wasted, first in the programs, now stolen from our retirement accounts and failed businesses, all for a gospel that didn't save. Yes, people need safe, decent places to live but just as we learned with the public housing high rises built in the 1950s, then the low rise townhouse public housing of the 60s and 70s, and the voucher plans of the 80s and 90s, housing itself doesn't change the person--the person changes (downgrades or upgrades, destroys or improves) the housing.

Note: my husband just returned from a meeting at the Westerville Community Center. He was raving about the facilities--swimming pools, indoor tracks, lounges, art studios, aerobics room, gymnasiums, magnificent installed art and sculpture--you name it, they had it--and a full parking lot. Are the people in Westerville wealthier, happier, or healthier than the people in Upper Arlington or Worthington? I doubt it. But the gap between their facility and ours (we don't have one) is just as big as the housing gaps between UA and Hilltop.