They make those helped buy the home, which requires credit checks, therefore excluding the vast majority of minority applicants.
They use the money recouped by these mortgages to fund overseas missionary work where they've been accused of requiring "helped" villages to build a church before any houses can be built.
They require those helped to "donate" "sweat equity" on other projects. These are people supposedly already needing assistance, meaning they likely work multiple jobs, and now they must give up literally hundreds of additional hours of their life not being with their family or relaxing, but "earning" the help Habitat donated.
Further problems with our local Habitat that may or may not be nation wide: They build houses larger than area average and lobby against relaxing restrictions on multi-family housing. Then, when a family can't pay their Habitat mortgage, it is sold to real estate companies which happens frequently. They also help ~8 families per year with a budget of over $3 million, compared to another local nonprofit, a Rebuilding Together affiliate, that helps ~30 families per year with a budget of less than $500 thousand.
This seems a little weak. "Garbage" certainly looks like an overreaction. Anyone out there building homes for people who can't otherwise afford them should get significant deference unless they're doing something really shady.
They make those helped buy the home, which requires credit checks, therefore excluding the vast majority of minority applicants
If they can help out more families this way, and the families can pay something, this isn't a bad plan. Also, it's better than what people could get on their own, so it's still good even if it's not perfect. Having and paying a mortgage is also a way to build credit, so a cheap enough mortgage could be a net benefit (especially if you don't have a lot of other ways of building credit).
fund overseas missionary work where they’ve been accused of requiring “helped” villages to build a church before any houses can be built
While I'm not a fan of religion, if they build a neighborhood along with the church that's a net gain even if it's not ideal.
they likely work multiple jobs, and now they must give up literally hundreds of additional hours of their life not being with their family or relaxing, but “earning” the help Habitat donated
They need labor and money to build houses. Sure, the ideal solution is to use federal dollars to guarantee housing for all, but absent that, requiring someone who can't contribute money to contribute labor doesn't strike me as unfair (especially as this allows them to help more people). I've never heard of them putting someone in financial straits with this arrangement, either; quite the opposite.
They build houses larger than area average and lobby against relaxing restrictions on multi-family housing.
This looks like an eye towards resale value. In my experience they're not building McMansions or anything (I've only worked on pretty modest houses), if they want the family to eventually be able to sell you don't want to build too small, and I'm guessing multi-family housing could also make selling more difficult.
They also help ~8 families per year with a budget of over $3 million, compared to another local nonprofit, a Rebuilding Together affiliate, that helps ~30 families per year with a budget of less than $500 thousand.
Rebuilding Together looks like a fine group, but it also looks like they focus on home repairs, not new home construction. Maybe this is a better strategy -- I don't know -- but it doesn't look like a direct comparison.
I just wish Carter didn't signal boost fucking Habitat for Humanity. What a garbage non-profit.
why is it bad
So, several reasons.
They make those helped buy the home, which requires credit checks, therefore excluding the vast majority of minority applicants.
They use the money recouped by these mortgages to fund overseas missionary work where they've been accused of requiring "helped" villages to build a church before any houses can be built.
They require those helped to "donate" "sweat equity" on other projects. These are people supposedly already needing assistance, meaning they likely work multiple jobs, and now they must give up literally hundreds of additional hours of their life not being with their family or relaxing, but "earning" the help Habitat donated.
Further problems with our local Habitat that may or may not be nation wide: They build houses larger than area average and lobby against relaxing restrictions on multi-family housing. Then, when a family can't pay their Habitat mortgage, it is sold to real estate companies which happens frequently. They also help ~8 families per year with a budget of over $3 million, compared to another local nonprofit, a Rebuilding Together affiliate, that helps ~30 families per year with a budget of less than $500 thousand.
This seems a little weak. "Garbage" certainly looks like an overreaction. Anyone out there building homes for people who can't otherwise afford them should get significant deference unless they're doing something really shady.
If they can help out more families this way, and the families can pay something, this isn't a bad plan. Also, it's better than what people could get on their own, so it's still good even if it's not perfect. Having and paying a mortgage is also a way to build credit, so a cheap enough mortgage could be a net benefit (especially if you don't have a lot of other ways of building credit).
While I'm not a fan of religion, if they build a neighborhood along with the church that's a net gain even if it's not ideal.
They need labor and money to build houses. Sure, the ideal solution is to use federal dollars to guarantee housing for all, but absent that, requiring someone who can't contribute money to contribute labor doesn't strike me as unfair (especially as this allows them to help more people). I've never heard of them putting someone in financial straits with this arrangement, either; quite the opposite.
This looks like an eye towards resale value. In my experience they're not building McMansions or anything (I've only worked on pretty modest houses), if they want the family to eventually be able to sell you don't want to build too small, and I'm guessing multi-family housing could also make selling more difficult.
Rebuilding Together looks like a fine group, but it also looks like they focus on home repairs, not new home construction. Maybe this is a better strategy -- I don't know -- but it doesn't look like a direct comparison.