My view is that you can own more than one home but with progressive property taxes and no corporation should be able to own a house, or even a property. I’m in two minds about properties they inhabit.
No residential property I assume? I guess apartments would need some new form of owning entity. In Sweden we have “bostadsrättsförening” which is basically an organization where your personal say is proportional to how much you own (i.e. how large your apartment compared to the total). Of course it has its drawbacks, especially if there is no resident that actually understands how to handle economy and plan maintenance that has to be a joint effort. Or if you have someone that embezzles.
An apartment-building owner WHO LIVES IN the building year-around might be in accord. (My own GG-ma ran a boarding-home for income after her husband died.)
Sure but from my understanding the problem in the US (and most places) isn’t that there isn’t room. The sum of empty houses/apartments is greater than the amount of homeless. It’s more distribution and logistics.
So we drop demand by outlawing many forms of ownership but with lower prices from that drop its reasonable to expect an increase in demand for the most popular places / places with a good salary and strong job market.
This then naturally moves the spot with available homes further from the major areas. People with low/no means are they then expected to move there to not be homeless? Even if there’s no career prospects or even jobs?
If we cap relocation how is that handled? Are you not allowed to move into and buy a new home in say San Francisco, LA or NY?
And how much relocation are we mandating for the homeless?
If we remove the free market there is an extreme demand for very thoughtful, planned out rules which need to be airtight because people exploit everything and every loophole will be found.
And if we don’t eliminate the free market, just limit who can own, then how do we avoid the aforementioned problems of accelerating urbanization? Such that we don’t equalize at the exact same prices just private owned instead of corporate owned.
“needs discussion” because you didn’t really think anything through, you just shout slogans on “how it would work” without any bearing on reality or the current housing situation.
You are strawmanning right now. I didn’t say “you don’t have an answer to one question”. I said “you don’t have any answers, and the answers you have wouldn’t work in the real world”. “We will need to discuss” in this comment was exactly that - no idea what to do, no idea on any ramifications, just “we got to do something!” with zero knowledge on the subject.
So no vacation homes at all?
And what constitutes an individual? A family unit? Or can you own two houses when you’re married, one per adult?
My view is that you can own more than one home but with progressive property taxes and no corporation should be able to own a house, or even a property. I’m in two minds about properties they inhabit.
No residential property I assume? I guess apartments would need some new form of owning entity. In Sweden we have “bostadsrättsförening” which is basically an organization where your personal say is proportional to how much you own (i.e. how large your apartment compared to the total). Of course it has its drawbacks, especially if there is no resident that actually understands how to handle economy and plan maintenance that has to be a joint effort. Or if you have someone that embezzles.
An apartment-building owner WHO LIVES IN the building year-around might be in accord. (My own GG-ma ran a boarding-home for income after her husband died.)
Nobody gets seconds until everyone has had a plate
Sure but from my understanding the problem in the US (and most places) isn’t that there isn’t room. The sum of empty houses/apartments is greater than the amount of homeless. It’s more distribution and logistics.
So we drop demand by outlawing many forms of ownership but with lower prices from that drop its reasonable to expect an increase in demand for the most popular places / places with a good salary and strong job market.
This then naturally moves the spot with available homes further from the major areas. People with low/no means are they then expected to move there to not be homeless? Even if there’s no career prospects or even jobs?
If we cap relocation how is that handled? Are you not allowed to move into and buy a new home in say San Francisco, LA or NY?
And how much relocation are we mandating for the homeless?
If we remove the free market there is an extreme demand for very thoughtful, planned out rules which need to be airtight because people exploit everything and every loophole will be found.
And if we don’t eliminate the free market, just limit who can own, then how do we avoid the aforementioned problems of accelerating urbanization? Such that we don’t equalize at the exact same prices just private owned instead of corporate owned.
Needs discussion. I’m more concerned for kids -never being able- to buy a home. “Owner-built”, no problem.
“needs discussion” because you didn’t really think anything through, you just shout slogans on “how it would work” without any bearing on reality or the current housing situation.
What kind of a weird stance is: If you don’t have all the answers the moment we talk about something your point is invalid.
“I don’t know, we will need to discuss” is a valid answer to follow up questions.
You are strawmanning right now. I didn’t say “you don’t have an answer to one question”. I said “you don’t have any answers, and the answers you have wouldn’t work in the real world”. “We will need to discuss” in this comment was exactly that - no idea what to do, no idea on any ramifications, just “we got to do something!” with zero knowledge on the subject.