Breathing life into ghost towns: Harnessing the promise of €1 homes
In affluent nations, a paradox is unfolding. Remarkably, 10 countries, which collectively account for less than 2.5% of the world GDP, are hosting over half of the world’s refugees. This contradiction is starkly illustrated by the peculiar scenario in which homes in wealthy countries, struggling to maintain their populations, are marketed for as little as €1. In some cases, Italian towns have even resorted to offering new residents up to €30,000 to purchase homes, but these incentives favor the economically advantaged, contrasting sharply with the limited support offered to refugees fleeing crises and seeking asylum in Italy.
Offering such selective initiatives amid a global refugee crisis is not just unsettling; it's a troubling reflection of the underlying xenophobia shaping these programs. Most of these individuals are fleeing a multitude of crises, including oppressive regimes, armed conflict, and economic instability — issues often linked to the histories of colonialism by the very countries now rejecting migrant influxes. Take, for instance, the journey of East African and Middle Eastern migrants who endure unimaginable hardships to cross the Mediterranean, often via Libya. In their quest for safety and opportunity, they confront harrowing and violent conditions, including enslavement, torture, extortion, and the constant threat of death at sea. Nearly 30,000 people have died or gone missing at sea in the Mediterranean since 2014. These stories illuminate the dire circumstances that drive people to risk everything for a chance at a better life.
The daughter of Eritrean immigrants, many of my family members passed through European countries, including Italy, in the late 1970s and 1980s before eventually settling in Europe and the U.S. Seeing today's news of East African refugees attempting to escape similar persecution but facing even more dangerous routes — often failing to survive the journey through Libya and the Mediterranean — resonates deeply with me. Even those who survive the journey are frequently turned away at European shores. These stories are heartbreaking, not only because they echo my community’s past and present reality but also because they underscore how much harsher the journey has become for refugees.
Comparatively, Ukrainian refugees have been received much more favorably within Europe, and globally, since Russia’s invasion in 2022. The European Union has, correctly, granted Ukrainians the automatic right to stay and work in any of its member nations for up to three years, and this has recently been proposed to be extended until March 2026. Additionally, Ukrainian refugees are provided with housing, food, medical care, social welfare payments, and access to housing and medical treatment. These are rights that all refugees deserve and should be extended universally. However, the same nations — such as Italy and Poland — that have welcomed Ukrainian refugees with open arms have previously rejected refugees fleeing similar violence from wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The unequal treatment and persistent challenges migrants face contrast with the open invitation extended to select “desirable” newcomers.
Recent news coverage highlights the €1 Italian home initiative, often featuring expats from the U.S. and painting rosy pictures of economic rejuvenation and cultural revival. However, it overlooks the discriminatory selection process that excludes many potential beneficiaries. Italy denies over half of its asylum seekers, depriving these refugees of any chance at a residence permit. This selective openness reveals a deeper, more troubling bias against migrants who do not fit certain economic or social profiles. Rather than extending financial incentives to all newcomers, Italy has chosen to pursue policies that involve deporting refugees to detention centers in Albania — a move that raises serious concerns about legality and humane treatment. The first deportation took place on October 16, 2024.
Even in the U.S., similar programs have surfaced. Baltimore recently launched a $1 homes initiative to revitalize vacant neighborhoods, and Newark held a lottery for $1 homes. While these initiatives appear to offer an opportunity to rebuild communities, they raise significant concerns. Do these programs prioritize and empower local or migrant populations in need? Or are they more likely to attract wealthier outsiders looking for affordable secondary properties or opportunities to "flip" homes, leading to gentrification and the displacement of existing residents?
Catering to individuals seeking secondary homes undermines the core intent of these programs: community revitalization. Reviving a neighborhood requires more than financial investment — it demands active, present community members. People with secondary homes may only reside in the area part time, contributing little to the long-term growth or cohesion of the community. The parallels between Italy's €1 homes initiative and U.S. programs highlight a common risk: excluding those who could most benefit from stable housing while catering to investors and second-home buyers who fail to bring lasting, meaningful change to these neighborhoods.
The demographic decline in many affluent nations is undeniable. Populations are aging, birth rates are falling, and communities are shrinking. Yet, instead of leveraging the potential of a diverse and eager migrant population, these countries often impose stringent barriers. The €1 homes initiative presents a transformative opportunity for both migrants and cities alike. Migrants bring cultural richness and innovation, essential for the vitality of any society. Ensuring these programs are accessible to all migrants would foster inclusive communities, stimulate local economies, and address demographic challenges. By reimagining the €1 home initiatives to be genuinely inclusive, we can transform a hollow gesture into a policy that drives real, lasting change benefiting many instead of few.
Ultimately, the story of €1 homes is not just about economic revival in picturesque ghost towns — it’s about who is truly welcomed and why. By embracing the potential of all migrants, we can turn contradictions into opportunities for growth and solidarity.
Leona Neftaliem (2023 cohort) is pursuing a PhD in environment and resources at Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. Her research focuses on improving tree detection methods, understanding migration patterns, and assessing air quality in urban environments.
Knight-Hennessy scholars represent a vast array of cultures, perspectives, and experiences. While we as an organization are committed to elevating their voices, the views expressed are those of the scholars, and not necessarily those of KHS.
