Living “Off The Grid”

            While not everyone may be familiar with the term living “Off The Grid”, it essentially means living in a home or area that does not have access to the public grid, aka electricity and water. This is not a new concept, as the US passed a Homestead Act in 1862 where individuals could gain ownership to land after improving it and much of our country’s historical roots have been passed down through the frontier lifestyle [1]. While many American families have humble and rural roots, some of the trades and skills of past generations have been lost through the modernization of America and popularity of metropolitan areas. That being said, more recent generations have found a need to reinvigorate these traditions whether it be to establish more healthy food sources, escape government tyranny, or leave behind overly stressful lifestyles.  

People choosing to live off the grid must provide their own sources of food, water and electricity. Some of the most publicized benefits have been the idea of not paying utility or mortgage bills or separating oneself from government control/restrictions without the use of currency or public goods. As you can imagine, providing these recourses in remote areas can be a full-time job in itself through hunting, fishing, tending agricultural fields, and home building. Home steaders as many still call them must be a jack of all trades. Interestingly enough, this culture has caught on with mainstream Americans as countless magazines, articles, and tv shows have articulated this type of subsistence lifestyle.

Some of the most familiar manifestations of this have been seen through the Tiny or Small House Movement. These consist mainly of homes less than 2,000 sq ft that can take up very little space and can be built at low cost by the resident [2]. These types of homes also endorse the use of salvageable materials like windows, doors, or wood that can be obtained for little to no cost [2]. These small homes are even sometimes built on flat bed trailers where they can be transported to different places or be relocated into tight spaces like friends backyards. These homes usually use renewable energy like solar panels and have the ability to reuse existing water. Essentially, a person can live with almost non-existent monthly costs out of one of these homes and not be required connection to the grid.

TV shows like Yukon Men, Alaska: The Last Frontier, or Mountain Men also depict the subsistence lifestyle. Alaska: The Last Frontier depicts the Kilcher family, who originally fled Europe during WWII and started a 600 acre homestead in Alaska more than 80 years ago [3]. 3 generations of the Kilcher family now live on this homestead near the town of Homer, Alaska [3]. As the Kilcher brothers manage the livestock, hunt moose and deer, and maintain the cornucopia of log cabins, the remainder of women and children harvest and preserve vegetables for the winter and other homestead tasks. That being said, during much of the show the Kilchers appear to be having a good time during family barbeques or goofing off around the property. They seem to have found their own slice of heaven.  

While this type of lifestyle may be to dramatic of a transition for many, renewable energy and recourses, access to organic foods, and time spent in the great outdoors is becoming more valued by Americans. While it is in our roots, many seem to be yearning back to those traditions as their 8-5 day jobs sitting in a cubicle or the several hour-long commutes have become increasingly mundane. These more rural lifestyles have gained popularity as the negatives aspects of metropolitan areas like traffic, density, and pollution have reared it’s ugly head. Whether this trend phases out or gains more moment who really knows, but it is obvious that many feeling trapped and are looking for a different life’s path closer to nature.

Work Cited

[1] “The Homestead Act of 1862.” National Archives. October 1997. 1 December 2013. Web. <www.archives.gov>

[2] “What is the Tiny House Movement.” The Tiny Life. 2 December 2013. Web. <www.tinylife.com>

[3] “Alaska: The Last Frontier.” The Discovery Channel. 2 December 2013. Web. <dsc.discovery.com>

California on Gun Violence

            Historically, the State of California has been one of the strictest states on gun control. Has this meant a decrease in gun-related crimes? Not exactly. While the state has banned assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and particular types of ammunition, the rate of gun-related murders has remained in the top 5 amongst other states with 3.4 murders per 100,000 people with approximately 2,000 killed by gunfire each year.

            So why aren’t California gun laws making a difference? The answer is laws banning particular guns or gun components do not remove firearms from gangs, criminals,and the black market. While law-abiding citizens may register or turn in newly banned weapons or participate in gun buy back programs, those who disregard the law are easily able to store and hide guns in their homes or backyards for decades. Many gun-related crimes are committed with firearms 20+ years old.

Why doesn’t California make laws that affect criminals? The answer is obvious; these types of laws are more expensive, difficult to manage, and do not sound as pretty on paper as gun bans. Policies that could address criminals would include more comprehensive background checks, gun registrations, gun licensing, and/or searches and seizures.

Instead of considering policies like these, the California legislator has chosen a mindset that gun bans magically remove guns hidden in someone’s closet or buried in their yard with some type of magical fairy dust. The harsh reality is little to nothing will be able to pull the thousands of illegally possessed firearms currently in circulation. Additionally, sending law enforcement to conduct home inspections, which has been suggested in some municipalities, would be unconstitutional, expensive, and most likely increase criminal activity in other neglected areas.

California and others can establish more detailed background checks, and require a training course where gun owners can learn safety precautions and procedures to using a firearm. In this type of system, gun-owners would have flawless records, and be ready to safely use and practice with the firearms, as well as steps in order to securely store them from unauthorized users. Gun-ownership licenses would inform government agencies if a licensed gun-owner has committed a felony or any other offense, and that his or her firearm should be confiscated. It would create a more cut and dry enforcement effort.

California needs to address gun ownership at the source and as something that will not see results till far down the road. That is the ugly truth. Legislators need to restrict WHO can purchase firearms opposed to what they can purchase. There should be a priority here; restricting gun ownership once the firearms are out in the public has been and always will be completely ineffective.

Accountability of the American Homebuyer from the US Housing Bubble

     As many already know, the US Housing Bubble was spearheaded by millions of homebuyers defaulting on sub-prime mortgages and extreme bank leveraging. This created an artificial rise in housing prices and then a bust moving into 2006-2012.  Documentaries, books, and research pieces have been put together regarding the reaction, mainly blaming the greed of Wall Street and mortgage companies like Countrywide. The “explanation” has certainly become a repetitive process. That being said, one subject of conversation that is almost never discussed is the fault of the American homebuyer.

     In most debates about the housing crisis, the American homebuyer who lost there home is seen as the victim. While some were conned into signing false mortgages and faced unknown payment increases, the vast majority could have prevented loosing there homes and credits altogether. Even if the real estate market had not faltered, many individuals signed risky reverse mortgages or delayed payments, assuming 20+% increases in home values per year [1]. That being said, homebuyers in many cases should have know that purchasing $600,000 to over $1 million homes with 5 figure household incomes was an  unrealistic proposition, no matter what salesmanship they faced [1]. At some point the principal had to be paid off.

     One reason homebuyers were so enticed was that the single-family home has always stood as the quintessential example of the American dream. This incentive was strong enough to push homebuyers basic logic aside. However, this priority of homeownership has been around for centuries in the US. Unlike the more dense multi-family housing structures of Europe, Americans strived to be better. Historically, the vast majority of presidents, politicians, and bureaucrats alike have strongly supported homeownership with measures like the Homestead Act, the Housing Act, and Fair Housing Act [1]. The US has always believed that homes gave people a social and financial stability with more involved citizens, safer neighborhoods, and healthier children.

     For these reasons, the federal government has a long history of making home mortgages easier to attain. One of the first was the mortgage interest deduction that individuals could apply to federal income taxes [2]. Soon after, the creation of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) in 1938 provided local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages, creating the 30-year fixed rate mortgage and leading to more housing loans [3]. After World War II, the GI Bill helped veterans make lower down payments with low interests [3]. It was during this time that suburban residential developments began to cover the US and homeownership rates rose to over 60 percent [4]. The US had become a country of homeowners and the Federal government was there to back up that ideal.   

            From that period, the 30 year fixed rate loan with 20% down became the gold standard for home mortgages.  Homebuyers would schedule immediate interest payments, and show several proofs of income. Unfortunately, beginning in the 2000’s there was a move by the Federal government to address homeownership among low-income families and minorities. The solution was to hand out loans with low interest, little to no money down, and limited proof of income. While there may have been a good premise behind the Fannie and Freddie loans, it had harmed those that it tried to help. Many of these low-income families signed off on mortgages that they could afford hypothetically for the first several years, but would have almost no chance of repaying the principal over a longer period.

When these homebuyers defaulted and housing values plummeted, trends in homeownership were substantially altered. Younger adults are now renting much longer than the generations before them because they are choosing to save assets and/or seek investments that are perceived as safer than purchasing a home [4]. Those who are fortunate enough to purchase homes are opting for more modest ones with lower payments [4]. Additionally, many real estate brokers and economists have noted that new homes have become smaller and lack the pricey extras such as patios or pools [4]. Homeowners are also remaining in those first homes for longer periods of time;  11% of those surveyed owned their home for 3 years or less, down from 30% in 2006 [5]. The idea of being able to purchase a home to build wealth and its use as a conservative long-term investment has dwindled.

            The US Housing Bubble has left a scar in homebuyers, and the types of financial incentives they should accept. Owning a home is a massive responsibility and not everyone is cut out for it. There are simply some individuals that do have the financial responsibility or means to own a home. Unfortunately, in more recent decades the federal government went to far in pushing the homeownership agenda and millions of people acquired homes that they would never be able to pay off. While the goal for increasing homeownership seems ethical, homebuyers should not have the privilege to transfer their debt onto the construction industry and middle class. The single-family home can and will represent an individual’s greatest investment, source of wealth, and vessel for life as long as the US does not compromise sound lending principles. Sustainable loan commitments and a healthy economic environment are the only sources to real increases in homeownership rates and quality of life for a lasting period of time.

Work Cited

[1] “The Fuel That Fed the Subprime Meltdown.” Investopedia. 26 February 2009. 9 April 2013. Web. <investopedia.com>

[2] “Inside Job” Directed by: Charles Ferguson. Film. 8 October 2010.

[3] “The Case Against Home Ownership.” Kiviat, Barbera. Time Magazine. 11 September 2010. 10 April 2010. 

[4] “Homeownership Harder to Attain Since Recession.” Pittman, Kristen. The Wichita Eagle. Kansas.com. 6 September 2011. 13 April 2013. Web. <Kansas.com>

[5] “Shifting Confidence in Homeownership: The Great Recession.” Bracha, Anat, and Jamison, Julian. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. 13 April 2013. Paper.