But they should - and business should join them.

Home ownership helps neighborhood stability and lowers the crime rate. It also gives people a larger stake in society.

Home ownership not only creates jobs, it helps the economy. House-proud home owners buy more raw materials such as lumber and tile, concrete and paint than most landlords or renters - even if they can't afford big-buck contractors. For every new home bu8ild, four-and-a-third jobs are created in construction and related fields.

The government already helps people buy homes. Government programs target people with low incomes as well as declining neighborhoods. New programs for fixer-uppers with zero down even include the cost of repairs in the loan itself.

The government also guarantees loans for GIs when they are ready to buy. This program has enabled generations of military personnel to own homes at a relatively early age. Thanks in part to the government programs, nearly two-thirds of the population nationwide own their homes today. The figure is slightly more than half (55 percent) in Sacramento.

Areas of Sacramento vary widely. Places like Fab Forties and East Sacramento have a whopping 79 percent ownership rate while midtown has 59 percent. Areas like Alkali Flat and downtown have a 59 percent rental rate.

But statistics give a false picture. The overall figure has gone down since the mid-1980's and for minorities, the figure is in the 40 percent range.

Today, one-third of the population rents. Some can't save a down payment. Some can't qualify for the income-mortgage requirement.

We should consider stepping up the programs to help people who still haven't bought homes - and to help the declining neighborhoods with low percentages of homeownership.

Bankers and loan officers like myself should do more. We need to educate people about current programs. The loans are out there. Not enough people know about them.

For, example, only a first-time buyer in a swank neighborhood needs 20 percent down. Five (or even 3) percent is enough for most first-time buyers. We also need to educate people about the long range investment value of housing, especially those people whose champagne tastes don't match their beer budget incomes.

For example, people who are spending 50 percent on rent to live in classier neighborhoods can't qualify for a loan at that amount. As bankers, we might consider expanding the income guidelines. The 30 percent income limit for monthly mortgage payment needs to be raised to take into account current costs of living, not only in upscale areas of Sacramento but most of California. Lenders need to be more in tune with the economic times. We need to realize that it takes more money to own a home today that it did 20 years ago.

We also need to be more flexible about loans. Many people who want to buy aren't' considered good credit risks. If people had bad credit but now have a good job and are cleaning up their act, we need to take a second look. One of the things I do is review loans on a case-by-case basis. I even write detailed letters to the FHA explaining what happened in the past and why I believe the applicant is now a good credit risk.

Into a VA-like program for first-time home buyers which would not require a down payment but still would guarantee the loan. In this case, the buyer would only have to come up with the closing costs. While insuring the loan, the government wouldn't have any more risk than it already does with programs in declining neighborhoods - and a lot more people could qualify.

How about even more creative ways? What if we expanded the idea of the GI Bill to include anyone who finished college? Anyone who graduated from high school and held a steady job for five years? Anyone who finished a drug or alcohol rehab program and stayed off the sauce for five years?

Why not give people who have made mistakes an incentive to turn their life around?

It might be more cost-effective. We spend from $20,000 to $60,000 annually on prisoners, depending on their age, compared $5,171 annually per child on education. Isn't it better to spend money up-front than down-the-line? Why waste money on a stopgap measures that don't actually help the individual or society?

The idea of giving people a hand by helping them buy something a tangible as a home could be the key to more positive changes than we might see another way - even in an era of budget cuts.