Foreclosure crisis

I have to admit that I, who have never in my life owned a house, have been known to be less than sympathetic to those who are foreclosed upon. Why buy a house that's bigger or more expensive than what you need? Nevertheless, the banks have not been innocent in financing houses for people they knew would not be able to keep up the payments indefinitely. But regardless of who is to blame more, there is a problem.

My suggested solution benefits those home buyers who have lost their homes to foreclosure. It does not benefit the banks which could not find any way to allow these people to remain in the homes they were buying. What if the government would purchase abandoned land such as unused industrial property in large cities and use that land to construct green, energy-efficient, non-allergenic houses with solar power, great insulation, car ports with crushed limestone driveways, yards for gardening and recreation?

To be eligible to live in one of these homes, one would have to be a U.S. citizen, have a source of income, and not be able to live in a house of one's own because of foreclosure. A lottery based on people's foreclosure dates may be necessary if the demand for such homes by eligble citizens exceeded the initial supply.

The houses would be built by the government, owned by the government, and rent would be paid to the government. The monthly rent amount would be based on the income of the renter(s). The total cost of the building would be determined upon completion of construction. There would be no sub-leasing allowed. If the renter stayed in the house indefinitely, when the total amount of monthly rent paid equaled the original cost of the property, the title to the property would be signed over to that tenant. That tenant would then own the property with full legal rights and responsibilities.

If a tenant chose to move out of the government-owned house before the total rent amount equaled the initial cost of the house, what they had paid in rent would be non-remittable. The government would maintain ownership and the house would be made available to the next needy eligible citizen with the same financial agreement.

This solution encourages the development of clean alternative energy sources, contributes to national energy independence, helps keep down health care costs, and may even prove to be profitable to the government in the long run. It would also help to eliminate tent cities. It would also create green building construction and supply jobs. It would add tax income to cities where these houses would be built. It might even prompt lending institutions to be more flexible with their mortgage customers. What do you, the reader, think of this solution? Please comment.