for our cities, and investing in ownershipnof property in our cities.”nThat “solution” sounds strangely likentraditional welfare. True, he wants thenpoor to own property. But what GreatnSociety liberal has ever opposed that?nThe question is whose property the poornare supposed to own: property they’venearned, or property that has been confiscatednfrom the middle class and redistributed?nAt a time when most of the middlenclass can’t buy homes, Kemp wants taxpayersnto give homes, gratis, to inner-citynresidents. Making monthly paymentsnto a landlord apparently doesn’t givenpeople a “stake in their community.”nSomehow, we are supposed to believenthat making monthly payments to angovernment mortgage company does.nBut until social science establishes ancausal link between being a renter andnbeing a felon, Kemp’s program is ofnquestionable value.nHis idea of home ownership mightnnot be objectionable if existing publicnhousing were sold to the poor at thensame rate it cost taxpayers to buildnthem. That’s what Samuel T. Pierce,nKemp’s predecessor at HUD, was doingnbefore being run out of town. ButnKemp’s housing sales have been farnmore costly. For example, convertingnthe Kennelworth-Parkside project innWashington, D. C, to “tenant-owned”nproperties cost taxpayers about $170,000nper unit. And for each unit sold, the lawnsays, another government-owned unitnmust be built.nOddly, Kemp’s program does not reallyninstitute formal ownership at all.nThe few who make it through HUD’snred tape to take possession of their unitsnare not allowed to resell homes on thenmarket. How is that different from renting?nWhere’s the incentive to takencare of the property? Thank goodnessnCongress granted HUD’s HOPE programnonly one third of the $1 billionnKemp had asked for in fiscal year 1993.nWhen Kemp complains the governmentn”prevents poor people from saving,”nhe means he wants to raise the ceilingnon assets held by welfare recipients.nHe argues that people on welfare shouldnbe able to save up to $10,000—tenntimes the amount allowed under presentnlaw—and still receive checks from UnclenSam. But that would remove an importantnincentive to get off welfare,nwhich is the desire to earn and savenmore income. In fact, removing thenceiling on income would make millionsnof new people eligible and lead to a vastnexpansion of welfare rolls.nPrimary among Kemp’s ideas is thenenterprise zone, which designates sectionsnof cities for low taxes and specialngrants to promote new businesses. IfnCongress passes his legislation, henpromises that inner-city poor will opennnew businesses, and that this will giventhem a “stake in their communities.”nThe trouble for Kemp is that Los Angelesnalready has an enterprise zone program,naccording to a 1990 article innPlants, Sites, and Parks magazine. Andnthe zone covers the South-Central LosnAngeles area that the mobs reduced tonash. For years, the state of California offeredngenerous incentives for investmentnin zoned areas. This included tax creditsnof $19,000 per new employee, salesntax credits on new machinery up to $1.2nmillion, tax incentives for lenders whonmake business loans, 15-year carry-overnof net operating losses and depreciation,nsubsidized rents, and marketing assistance.nCalifornia’s zone program wasnpartly responsible for creating new minority-ownednbusinesses in Los Angeles’snpoor areas, but the beneficiariesnwere not the inner-city blacks that Mr.nKemp wants to lift out of poverty. Theynwere industrious Korean immigrantsnwho probably would have opened businessesnanyway. Eight hundred of theirnnew enterprises were burned to thenground.nCiven past experience at the state level,nmoreover, the beneficiaries of enterprisenzone programs have been businessesnthat decide to relocate to betterntax environments. But if private propertyncannot be secured against vandals,nand insurance companies are reluctantnto take on high risks, even zero taxes willnfail to convince major businesses tonmove to high-crime areas.nFinally, what is giving the poor “anstake in their community” really allnabout? They already have “a stake inntheir community”: they live there. Ifnthat doesn’t suffice, it’s hard to knownwhat would.nPerhaps Kemp should spend less timengranting interviews and more time managingnHUD, the job the taxpayers paynhim to do. A recent audit conducted bynthe General Accounting Office foundnthat the agency has lost track of morenthan $1 billion. This is the sixth auditnin the three years Mr. Kemp has runnHUD that has warned of waste, mis­nnnmanagement, and possible fraud. Annaudit conducted by Price Waterhousenlast year was so negative that he still refusesnto release it publicly. Why shouldnKemp be counted on to save our citiesnfrom further destruction when he can’tnget his own agency’s financial house innorder?nJack Kemp has become the Jesse Jacksonnof the right, pushing huge federalngovernment programs for problems thatnare fundamentally local, cultural, andnmoral. On the other hand, the financialnand political base for his 1996 presidentialnbid is coming along nicely.n—Jeffrey A. TuckernLos ANGELES was bopped by debrisncrumbling loose from twenty-five yearsnof a Great Society gone goofy, or so believenthe callers from all over Americanwith whom I talk for three hours onnweekday afternoons. These talk-showncallers are angry, frightened, and baffled.nThey’re angry at pictures of rabblenmarching on Korean grocers like peasantsnoff to Frankenstein’s castle.nThey’re fuming at the insult of thenmoral, drawn by the civil-rights community,nthat when a black is beaten bynpolice, it’s the fault of the police; whennKoreans are beaten by mobs, it’s thenfault of the Koreans. Callers figure thatnneither rage nor fear explain the frenzynof a police attack upon an unarmed motoristnor the mob’s attack upon truckndrivers and Asians.nCallers are angered by people likenDemocratic Congresswoman MaxinenWaters, who named the days of lootingn”The New American Insurrection.”nLike the furious Boston caller angered bynWaters’ contention that he didn’t understandnblack rage, “Hell, that’s the crynof the New Frontiersman: ‘You can’t understandnwhat you refuse to subsidize.'”nCallers have a simpler explanation fornthe riots: “When Congress is lootingnWashington, why be surprised that theirnclients loot South-Central L. A.?”nPeople are furious over Jesse Jackson’sncall for a Day of Protest on June 19.n”Victim’s Day,” as a Philadelphia mannsays, “A great plan. Wait till the temperaturesnbubble—then call a strike intonthe streets. Victim’s Day is anothernword for ‘HOORAY’ to contractors whonbuild bars onto merchants’ windows.” Anwoman in Hartford wondered whethern”Jackson hired his strategist from Banknof New England.”nAUGUST 1992/7n