A Nation That Owns Its Homes Owns Its Destiny

Homeownership isn’t a luxury, but an essential ingredient in republicanism.

This article is part of The Forum’s Debate Series, in which student writers take opposing sides on issues of importance to public life. Read the other side of the debate here.

California homes in 1850, painted by George H. Burgess. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

In the other half of this Forum op-ed series, my friend Caleb Rasor ‘28 argues that the traditional American cultural emphasis on homeownership is a mistake. Mr. Rasor’s grasp of economics and politics is strong, but my piece will aim to demonstrate that this emphasis is, in fact, supported by both data and political theory. Not only is widespread homeownership a ticket to a wealthier and safer society, but it has functioned as an essential ingredient for republican self-governance.

Property allows citizens to participate in the republic, and arms allow citizens to defend it. The greatest expositor of the role of property was the 17th-century English political thinker James Harrington. Where others speak of a “balance of power,” Harrington identifies a “balance of property.” 

In his 1656 The Commonwealth of Oceana, Harrington presented his vision for a model republic. He viewed widespread ownership of property as a prerequisite for successful self-government. Harrington wrote that property must be distributed “at such a balance that the power can never swerve out of the hands of the many.” 

I believe that Harrington’s insights hold true for the modern moment. Homeownership remains the best way to ensure that property, and thus power, is held by the people. A society where renting predominates over homeownership takes this power away from those actually living in homes and gives it to landlords. At worst, this would hand more power to corporations that purchase properties by the thousands to rent out to the masses. Ideally, these homes should be investments for individuals.

Mr. Rasor makes the case that Americans are mistaken in regarding homeownership as an investment at all. He rightly points out that inflation-adjusted home prices have risen 78% since 1987, while, over that same period, the value of the S&P 500 has risen 1,664%. However, the point of homeownership has never merely been individual investment. You cannot raise a family in your stock portfolio. Homes are a practical asset—gaining value is only an additional upside. While it is not fundamentally necessary to own a home in order to raise a family and build a life, homeownership supplies you with the roots to do so successfully. 

In any case, the individual monetary benefits of homeownership are secondary to homeownership’s role as a community investment. In his Virtue, Commerce, and History, historian of political thought J.G.A Pocock summarizes the role of property in Harrington’s model republic, writing: “[T]he citizen possessed property in order to be autonomous…he did not possess it in order to engage in trade, exchange or profit.”

Your home is more than an investment in yourself as an individual. It is the best way to hold a share of your community. Homeowners have a unique interest in making their neighborhoods safer and more wholesome places to live—both for themselves, and for the next generation. Research indicates that homeowners are more likely to have children, and thus have a stake in the future of their communities, too.

A 2013 study by economists William Rohe and Mark Lindblad affirmed both the intuitions of classical republicans such as James Harrington and common sense. Rohe and Lindblad found that homeownership improved quality of life along five metrics: “psychological health, physical health, parenting and children’s academic achievement and behavior, social and political participation, and neighborhood/social capital.”

Psychological health and community participation saw the greatest benefits. Several of these benefits were attributed to increased likelihood for homeowners to remain in a community long-term. The longer the tenure of one’s stay, the greater the incentive and ability to participate in community organizations. Mr. Rasor would have you believe that this pattern is merely coincidental. But Robert and House (1996) found that even “after controlling for education, income, and liquid assets, homeownership was positively related to self-reported health.” That makes sense; after all, homeowners are more likely to report feeling safe in their communities.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Rasor observes, rising costs have made homeownership less accessible for many Americans. Actions must be taken to lower prices to make homeownership accessible to all. 

Among these might be subsidies and regulations to increase the building of smaller homes. The average size of an American home has increased by 244% since 1950—from 983 square feet to over 2,400—and costs have risen in turn.

That isn’t to say that all new development ought to be urban. “Suburban sprawl” has become a dirty phrase in recent housing discourse. It shouldn’t be. Suburbs designed in an earlier era aimed to build communities that integrated single family homes and small businesses. The only way to grant our generation the lives our grandparents enjoyed is thoughtful sprawl—sprawl that mimics a bygone age of smaller homes and “corner” businesses. The best of walkability and the best of homeownership can coexist.

A simple model for attempting to encourage the benefits of widespread home ownership might be found in Singapore. The Singaporean government constructs small homes for those in need and sells them on 99-year contracts that function as de facto home ownership. This has allowed the resources of the state to distribute property to those otherwise unable to buy. Although this alone would not bring about the balance of property as envisioned by Harringtonian thinkers, it would certainly revitalize homeownership culturally.

In short, owning a home is about one’s place in society. To own your home is, of course, to own the roots that tie you to a place. But it is also a liberating action that allows and incentivizes you to work within our democratic framework for the betterment of your community. By owning your home, you are owning a share in our collective destiny.