information. A glossy book targeted atnthe public and distributed by the agencyn(“Home Ownership and AffordablenHousing: The Opportunities”) featuresnpictures of Kimi Grey receivingnthe key to 132 renovated units. But thenbook makes no mention of the rise inncosts. The agency’s book lists no aggregatenfigures for any of the 17 “successful”ncases of conversion to tenant ownership,ngiving it the ring of an elaboratendisinformation campaign. But it doesnquote Kemp saying he wants to “replicatenthe spirit and success of this homenownership program throughout thenNation.”nWhy does it cost so much to sellnpublic housing? After all, the decisionnto sell usually implies an expectation ofnprofit. But not at HUD. “These sales,”nsays the agency, “will be complexntransactions, requiring planning for rehabilitation,ncounseling of tenants, organizationndevelopment, and planningnfor economic development activities.”nThose are code words for a bureaucraticnbonanza. Yet Kemp wants to replicatenthe Kenilworth experience withnthe nation’s 13,000 public housingnprojects, with critics estimating the costnat $75 billion.nOnce the transaction is complete,nwe find that none of these poor peoplenwill actually “own” anything, if ownershipnimplies control. The governmentnsets the price at which they are sold,none which people below the povertynline can afford. The “owners” continuento receive regular subsidies for fivenyears, and there is plenty of moneynavailable after that during economicndownturns.nA survey by Stegman and Robenasked public housing residents the reasonsnfor wanting ownership, and 67npercent of them said it was a goodnfinancial investment. But under thenKemp standards of “ownership,” it isnnot. The owners cannot put theirnplaces on the open market, but cannonly sell it back to the government, ornto a government proxy, which thennallows only poor people to “buy” it.nAnd for the first twenty years, thenperson is not allowed to make moneynfrom sales because “undue profits” arendisallowed by law. This is not a market:nit is what Ludwig von Mises calledn”playing market.” As CassandranChrones Moore pointed out in NationalnReview, HUD rules for housingn40/CHRONICLESnownership parallel the Soviet systemnfor land ownership, except the Sovietnsystem is slightiy fieer.nThe agency publishes a monographnof questions and answers about HOPE.nThe first question: How does HOPEnfit into a national housing strategy fornlow-income people? Answer: “ThenDepartment’s housing strategy includesnmaintaining the existing subsidizednhousing stock — through programsnsuch as public housing operatingnsubsidies and modernization, preservation,nand renewal of Section 8 contracts—whilenexpanding the numbernof households served through housingnvouchers and certificates.” That’snsome vision.nIf you were under the impressionnthat Kemp is trying to move away fromnpublic housing, the monograph isnquick to correct this. “In fact, we’rendoing the opposite . . . because allnunits sold will be replaced on a one-foronenbasis, we are actually doubling thenstock available.” For every unit sold,nanother public housing unit goes up.nThough this is like using bug spray thatnbreeds a roach for every one it kills, inn1992, HOPE will spend $270 millionnon “Public Housing Replacement.”nIn the Orwellian language ofnKemp’s agency, providing “opportunity”nactually means giving more cashngrants for much more than the fundamentals.nThus the poor get not only anhouse, but social therapy as well. Fornexample, the “Elderly Independence”nproject of HOPE is openly welfarish. Itnpromises to provide more “comprehensive”ncare than when the liberalsnwere in charge. The “frail elderly” getnfunds for “personal care, case management,ntransportation, meals, counseling,nsupervision, and other servicesnessential for achieving and maintainingnindependent living.” This is encouragingnindependence, Washington-style.nAnother part of HOPE is the “ShelternPlus Care” program dedicated ton”ending the tragedy of homelessness.”nIn its literature, the agency provides anchronology of the great deeds thisndivision has done between May 1989nto January 1991. Adding up all thenexpenditures for these deeds, the billncomes to over $1 billion. Kemp hasnasked for another 22 percent increasenin the program for 1992.nAmidst all this fretting about thenhomeless, the Census Bureau reportsnnnthat in the rest of America, the averagenage of first-time home buyers is 31ntoday, compared to 28 in 1976.nIt is virtually impossible for youngncouples to raise money for a homenwithout outside help, usually providednby their parents. The country is gettingnpoorer, thanks to agencies like HUD,nbut few seem interested in this problem.nIn budget battles, Kemp spends hisntime and energy lashing out at anyonenwho dares question his demand fornneady $900 million in grants for hisnHOPE program, even though that’s an450 percent increase over the 1991nbudget. The Senate wanted to appropriaten”only” $440.4 million and thenHouse only $361 million. But that’snunacceptable, according to Kemp, becausenit puts “HUD’s FY 1992 budgetnon a collision course with very importantnhousing needs in the future,”nKemp told congressional conferees.nHe also blasted Congress for suggestingnstaffing cuts in the Office of PolicynDevelopment; cuts would “make itnextremely difficult for this Office tonfunction effectively,” he wrote.nThat’s what we get from a man whondescribes himself (most recentiy to thenWashington Post) as a “bleeding-heartnprogressive liberal democrat — small 1,nsmall d — Abraham Lincoln privateproperty-basednconservative.” Henspeaks often for conservative groupsnaround Washington, D.C., deliveringnroughly the same message at eachngathering. He attacks old-line conservativesnin terms as strange as those henuses on liberals. Vintage Kemp: “Howncan the poor pull themselves up byntheir bootstraps if they don’t have anynboots?!”nBetween speeches, he tours housingnprojects in big cities to demonstrate hisnconcern for the poor, the camerasnalways on hand to capture the moment.nConservatives may be amused atnhis bravado, but then sit back comfortablynon the belief that if Kemp is notnopenly dismantling federal housingnprograms, he is doing so covertly, or atnthe very least improving the situation.nBut there is no mystery about whatnKemp is up to. He is erecting a conservativenwelfare state of a peculiar variety,nand piling it on top of an alreadynexisting liberal one. To the taxpayer,nthe ideological label makes no difference.nKemp does get needled from then