Corporations can own a maximum of X rental properties (enough to allow a dedicated team to find a career servicing them, maintaining them, etc but not many past that point - I'd like wager in the low single digits).
This discourages using housing as a financial asset past owning where you live. This alone should reduce the cost of housing significantly. Housing gets cheaper, more people have housing.
Create programs where people or cities can get stable, low cost loans from the government to construct housing ranging from detached single family homes to high density apartment complexes.
If you live somewhere with restrictive zoning laws, revise them for the modern age.
This should allow communities to solve their own housing issues via lowering the financial burden of various solutions.
Continue to offer free shelter for homeless who want it and need a place to get back on their feet, provide amenities that make that transition easier.
Create a research task force to determine any other causes of homelessness and propose solutions. I'd wager: legalizing most drugs, forced mental rehabilitation, and sunset laws for criminal records would get rid of the rest.
For point 2 does one location with 3 buildings count as 1 or 3
Are you asking about the difference between land and buildings? If that's the distinction you're attempting to clarify I mean rental properties. I didn't clarify land rights in my original comment but they'd follow the same concept. A single entity can only own so much, with harsher restrictions towards renting. Land and what's on it should be owned by those who use it.
If you mean the distinction between like a mall and it's shops, I think additional barriers can be created around classifications of said properties. 4 homes, 2 apartment complexes, 1 massive shopping center. That sorta thing.
Do you mean apartment complexes should all be owned by the people there like condos?
What I meant was usually the apartment buildings will build 2 or 3 buildings in one lot. Would that count as one rental property for a company or multiple.
Ideally everyone owned the space they lived in, transferring ownership was as simple as finding someone else to move in, and the community invested into their own infrastructure at a more impactful rate than today.
I'd say each building counts, with rules that discourage things like "connecting" three buildings to make it classify as 1. An apartment complex with X number of flats is a lot to manage on its own, multiple more so. With that reasoning we want rules to limit the amount they own.
I generally support not actually owning land in general.
As a side note my house growing up was classed as a duplex which as I understand it is basically one big house where it's just split with interior walls into 2 houses.
However what I lived in was 2 completely separate houses with a wall built in between the garages out of bricks. Maybe 6 feet deep or something. Literally 2 separate houses with a pile of bricks between them and they classified it as a duplex for taxes and shit. Always thought that made no sense.
Ya, that's odd. I don't know the specific regulations but wherever we draw a line it's going to create edge cases that feel weird.
Land ownership is odd in my opinion as well.
What I really care about is the system we have now incentivizes increasing the cost of housing and that's not how any society should be designed.
Yes the problem is we view housing as an investment and people use their primary residence as a means of funding their retirement. Even if we individually set housing prices and people "lost" 3/4 of their home value they would still be able to buy another home with the value remaining because it would also be lowered. It would only affect using your equity to pay for life services. And even then, if we controlled rent prices and retirement home prices none of that would matter at all.
The thing with homes and the stock market going up is that it doesn't create value. All it does is take money from people working and trade it to people who "own" things.
This discourages using housing as a financial asset past owning where you live. This alone should reduce the cost of housing significantly. Housing gets cheaper, more people have housing.
Create programs where people or cities can get stable, low cost loans from the government to construct housing ranging from detached single family homes to high density apartment complexes.
If you live somewhere with restrictive zoning laws, revise them for the modern age.
This should allow communities to solve their own housing issues via lowering the financial burden of various solutions.
Continue to offer free shelter for homeless who want it and need a place to get back on their feet, provide amenities that make that transition easier.
Create a research task force to determine any other causes of homelessness and propose solutions. I'd wager: legalizing most drugs, forced mental rehabilitation, and sunset laws for criminal records would get rid of the rest.
For point 2 does one location with 3 buildings count as 1 or 3
Are you asking about the difference between land and buildings? If that's the distinction you're attempting to clarify I mean rental properties. I didn't clarify land rights in my original comment but they'd follow the same concept. A single entity can only own so much, with harsher restrictions towards renting. Land and what's on it should be owned by those who use it.
If you mean the distinction between like a mall and it's shops, I think additional barriers can be created around classifications of said properties. 4 homes, 2 apartment complexes, 1 massive shopping center. That sorta thing.
Do you mean apartment complexes should all be owned by the people there like condos?
What I meant was usually the apartment buildings will build 2 or 3 buildings in one lot. Would that count as one rental property for a company or multiple.
Ideally everyone owned the space they lived in, transferring ownership was as simple as finding someone else to move in, and the community invested into their own infrastructure at a more impactful rate than today.
I'd say each building counts, with rules that discourage things like "connecting" three buildings to make it classify as 1. An apartment complex with X number of flats is a lot to manage on its own, multiple more so. With that reasoning we want rules to limit the amount they own.
I generally support not actually owning land in general.
As a side note my house growing up was classed as a duplex which as I understand it is basically one big house where it's just split with interior walls into 2 houses.
However what I lived in was 2 completely separate houses with a wall built in between the garages out of bricks. Maybe 6 feet deep or something. Literally 2 separate houses with a pile of bricks between them and they classified it as a duplex for taxes and shit. Always thought that made no sense.
Ya, that's odd. I don't know the specific regulations but wherever we draw a line it's going to create edge cases that feel weird.
Land ownership is odd in my opinion as well.
What I really care about is the system we have now incentivizes increasing the cost of housing and that's not how any society should be designed.
Yes the problem is we view housing as an investment and people use their primary residence as a means of funding their retirement. Even if we individually set housing prices and people "lost" 3/4 of their home value they would still be able to buy another home with the value remaining because it would also be lowered. It would only affect using your equity to pay for life services. And even then, if we controlled rent prices and retirement home prices none of that would matter at all.
The thing with homes and the stock market going up is that it doesn't create value. All it does is take money from people working and trade it to people who "own" things.