Cities with high levels of homeownership--in the range of 75%, like Detroit and St. Lous -had on average considerably lower levels of economic activity and much lower wages and incomes. Far too many people in financial problems are trapped in homes they can't sell, unable to move on to new centers of opportunity. The cities and regions with the lowest levels of homeownership--in the range of 55% to 60% like Los Angeles and New York--had healthier economies and higher incomes. They also had higher levels of happiness and well-being. I was shocked to read these interesting points that Richard Florida made in his recent article. Let me try to understand. The people in Detroit and St. Louis are less happy than the people in New York, and Los Angeles. And, the reason is because of home ownership rates? First, to compare them to New York City (the economic capital of the world), Los Angeles (the entertainment capital of the world) seems unfair. Most people in almost any other city in the world might be less happy! Next, let's try a different way of determining whether renters are happier than homeowners. Why don't we ask them? Fannie Mae's National Housing Survey 2010 reported:    75% of current renters believe owning a home makes more sense. 67% plan to buy a home at some point in the future. When they asked current renters for the major reason to buy a house, these were their answers (they could pick several answers): 78% said it was a good place to raise children. 75% said because they would feel safe. 70% said because you have control your own space. If you believe renters are happier, you would also have to believe the majority enjoy living in a less safe environment, which wouldn't be a good place to raise children and would be a place where they have less control of their space. ks5u According to the passage, current renters' reasons to buy a house are the follows except   _  .
to have a good place to raise children to live in a safer environment to make money to have control of their own space