> "The Atlanta proposal was to permit them on lots that already have a home but not elsewhere." they implemented something similar here in southern california.

> "The Atlanta proposal was to permit them on lots that already have a home but not elsewhere." they implemented something similar here in southern california. the reason for this is to get homeowners on board, by giving them all the control and potential income from a proposal that nominally increases housing (giving politicians a 'win' without changing much). the problem with this kind of policy is many-fold, but most egregiously it serves to intentionally lock out non-homeowners from both homebuying (by raising prices further) and homebuilding (by keeping buildable land off the market). it's literally designed to suppress class mobility and exclude the lower classes from homeownership. it also exacerbates homelessness, misallocates capital, and ultimately stagnates an economy. instead, we need to overhaul zoning regulations, building codes/permitting processes, and tax policy (perhaps by land value principally) to encourage subdivision and construction.