Everyone should have housing in a decent location, but making this about ownership is silly. Land is a finite public good. Period. Denser buildings that no-one

Everyone should have housing in a decent location, but making this about ownership is silly. Land is a finite public good. Period. Denser buildings that no-one should entirely own are usually better. Taking a step back, flows are good, stocks are bad, unless there is a "real" capital investment at stake. Ownership, a single payment (ignoring morages) for indefinite rights, is a very weird financial instrument (note the contrast between "forever" and "single" transfer). It's funny fiction that just complicates the math. Rents, a flow, are actually good. The problem is not rents but rentierism, i.e. when rents flow to owners (to stock) regardless of productive investment. The solution is to move away from equity to debt base financing: The constructors of the home are paid a fixed profit (fixed interest) and nothing more (bounded stock), buildings are coops (no ownership distinct from residency) and rents continuously replenish the maintainence pool after the construction debt is paid (flows all the way down!). Again, speculation on finite land post construction investment recoupment is a cancer that has no place in the public sphere. People who like "actually existing capitalism" are being severely uncreative with the math.