4 ms·

If this is such a good idea, why don’t they raise private funds from various charities and rich people to fund an experiment? Why am I as a taxpayer constantly

If this is such a good idea, why don’t they raise private funds from various charities and rich people to fund an experiment? Why am I as a taxpayer constantly asked to fund ever more schemes? This one has the all markings of a non-profit, and if you involve the government and associated bureaucracy it will become an entrenched quagmire like the huge housing projects that have been torn down in many cities. I don’t see why we need a trillion-dollar slush fund to make this happen.

zhdc1 6y ago
Expanding on this, there are already similar schemes out there, and they've done nothing to stop property price inflation. Abstracting away ownership from the property to a collective legal entity ignores the main reason why people 'own' property in the first place - property needs to be actively maintained, and when it's not, those affected need to be able to identify and movitiate a responsible party. Even when you own stock in a cooperative, you're responsible for the part you live in. Once you tie in financing, insurance, and utilities, you're left with something that looks an awfully lot like property ownership, except with a slightly different fee structure.
- chii 6y ago
  > ignores the main reason why people 'own' property in the first place no, the main reason people own property is to extract profit from it (or extract utility - essentially the same thing). Maintenance is merely a hinderance that they put up with in order to maximize said utility/profit extraction. If it were possible to create a property with no need for maintenance, the owners would opt for that!
  - zhdc1 6y ago
    Ownership is a legal fiction. In the context of common law countries, the state originally held final "ownership" over all land. People largely weren't allowed to own property in the modern sense of the term until after the Statute of Westminster (1290), which was passed after it became too difficult for courts to resolve who, exactly, was responsible for what (and for how long, and what was owed in return) under the older feudal system. I'm sure a lawyer or someone with a better understanding of the history behind all of this can chime in, but the concept of ownership is very much tied to the state's need to know who is responsible for each piece of land, whether for taxation, ensuring upkeep, or for resolving court disputes.
bennysomething 6y ago
I agree. Also how does this system change the cost of housing over all. I don't see how it changes anything. The simple reason rents are high in some areas is supply and demand. Will this increase supply? Or reduce demand in those areas. Doubt it.

zhdc1 6y ago

Expanding on this, there are already similar schemes out there, and they've done nothing to stop property price inflation. Abstracting away ownership from the property to a collective legal entity ignores the main reason why people 'own' property in the first place - property needs to be actively maintained, and when it's not, those affected need to be able to identify and movitiate a responsible party. Even when you own stock in a cooperative, you're responsible for the part you live in. Once you tie in financing, insurance, and utilities, you're left with something that looks an awfully lot like property ownership, except with a slightly different fee structure.

chii 6y ago
> ignores the main reason why people 'own' property in the first place no, the main reason people own property is to extract profit from it (or extract utility - essentially the same thing). Maintenance is merely a hinderance that they put up with in order to maximize said utility/profit extraction. If it were possible to create a property with no need for maintenance, the owners would opt for that!
- zhdc1 6y ago
  Ownership is a legal fiction. In the context of common law countries, the state originally held final "ownership" over all land. People largely weren't allowed to own property in the modern sense of the term until after the Statute of Westminster (1290), which was passed after it became too difficult for courts to resolve who, exactly, was responsible for what (and for how long, and what was owed in return) under the older feudal system. I'm sure a lawyer or someone with a better understanding of the history behind all of this can chime in, but the concept of ownership is very much tied to the state's need to know who is responsible for each piece of land, whether for taxation, ensuring upkeep, or for resolving court disputes.

bennysomething 6y ago

I agree. Also how does this system change the cost of housing over all. I don't see how it changes anything. The simple reason rents are high in some areas is supply and demand. Will this increase supply? Or reduce demand in those areas. Doubt it.