4 ms·
Private ownership pushes the cost of upkeep to the property owner and charges them a yearly fee. I'm not sure society could afford to maintain those properties
by wolco 7y ago
Private ownership pushes the cost of upkeep to the property owner and charges them a yearly fee. I'm not sure society could afford to maintain those properties while cities lose their taxation ability.
It also anchors a person to society forces them to partipate.
- leetcrew 7y agoI'm not suggesting the city becomes a landlord and starts renting out apartments to people. I'm suggesting the city owns the land, you lease the land for something like twenty or fifty years and do what you want with it. next lessee gets to decide what they want to do with whatever you built there.
- beerandt 7y agoI get what you're saying in theory. But in practice, that's essentially no different than the simple fee system most places have today, with the exception of forcing land to be re-sold at some set interval. (Unless you're advocating for a method of distribution / allocation other than highest bidder.) What most people consider ownership is really just leasing from the state via yearly property tax values. What you're suggesting would only increase property values further. It's a similar mechanism that fuels "gentrification."