I mostly agree, with the exception that we need high-density housing, and individuals are unlikely to be able to afford large apartment complexes.
I think high-density housing should be allowed to be corporate-owned, but there should be much better tenant protection laws. Landlordism shouldn’t be a highly-profitable enterprise.
If we could make affordable, high-density condo buildings, that would be great. Unfortunately nobody wants to finance expensive construction for low-profit sales.
Individuals also usually cannot afford getting 100 acres of former farmland rezoned, getting the town and county to approve roads and sewer, paying the utility companies to lay electric, gas, internet and telephone lines, grading the land, and building out streets and amenities … Before building their own house on it.
You’re not going to get an increase in the supply of single family homes or multi family housing without businesses doing it as an investment, but guess what? Urbanization is going to keep going, and the US population is going to keep increasing until at least the 2050s.
… So removing the mechanism we rely on to create housing, while knowing more people are going to need housing, without replacing it with a new mechanism, is a recipe for disaster.
You can selectively ban what corporations can do, it doesn’t have to be an outright full ban from everything to do with housing.
You can have investment into housing development while simultaneously banning corporate ownership of actual homes beyond building and construction of them. It will still be hugely profitable and drive the expansion we need.
What we should ban is companies buying up housing stock and flipping for profit. We should also ban AirBNB outside specific zones for it. We should ban anyone owning 5+ homes without an exceptionally good reason for it. We should tax the shit out of empty homes that stay empty for longer than a month without a proven valid exception. There is plenty we can do without hurting investment into the actual areas we need them in.
Or we could take the much more straightforward track of incentivizing development of high density housing, and changing zoning laws so they do not overwhelmingly favor wealthy incumbent homeowners over respective home buyers, which is the actual issue
I mostly agree, with the exception that we need high-density housing, and individuals are unlikely to be able to afford large apartment complexes.
I think high-density housing should be allowed to be corporate-owned, but there should be much better tenant protection laws. Landlordism shouldn’t be a highly-profitable enterprise.
If we could make affordable, high-density condo buildings, that would be great. Unfortunately nobody wants to finance expensive construction for low-profit sales.
Individuals also usually cannot afford getting 100 acres of former farmland rezoned, getting the town and county to approve roads and sewer, paying the utility companies to lay electric, gas, internet and telephone lines, grading the land, and building out streets and amenities … Before building their own house on it.
You’re not going to get an increase in the supply of single family homes or multi family housing without businesses doing it as an investment, but guess what? Urbanization is going to keep going, and the US population is going to keep increasing until at least the 2050s.
… So removing the mechanism we rely on to create housing, while knowing more people are going to need housing, without replacing it with a new mechanism, is a recipe for disaster.
You can selectively ban what corporations can do, it doesn’t have to be an outright full ban from everything to do with housing.
You can have investment into housing development while simultaneously banning corporate ownership of actual homes beyond building and construction of them. It will still be hugely profitable and drive the expansion we need.
What we should ban is companies buying up housing stock and flipping for profit. We should also ban AirBNB outside specific zones for it. We should ban anyone owning 5+ homes without an exceptionally good reason for it. We should tax the shit out of empty homes that stay empty for longer than a month without a proven valid exception. There is plenty we can do without hurting investment into the actual areas we need them in.
Or we could take the much more straightforward track of incentivizing development of high density housing, and changing zoning laws so they do not overwhelmingly favor wealthy incumbent homeowners over respective home buyers, which is the actual issue