6 ms·

Universal Housing

24 points by tosh 2mo ago

romanhounds 2mo ago
[dead]
Guestmodinfo 2mo ago
10% mandatory free is very very good idea. And no one can keep houses as investment. Yes that's also awesome idea. I don't get it why should we allow capitalist forces to manipulate and act on fundamental necessities like housing, air, water, food (in India, the govt has been distributing practically free grains since we got freedom i think). I mean if you don't want to eat govt rationed grain then you can buy from free market but govt does gives dirt cheap rations to the poor. So these ideas are amazing. If I don't want to live in my parents' house then it should return to the govt pool. I should not have the right to sell it because why should I take someone else's right. I often think of creating a free housing for the destitute from one of my parents property. What's stopping me is that police and judiciary and politicians in India love to harass an innocent person till eternity. What if someone dies at my facility because I only want to provide free sleeping space to 20 people and not take daily care of the dwellers. Police also frowns upon housing unknown people on your property. I don't understand the logic. But police wants them to be destitute rather than they be some shady person living in your facility. So who has time for doing all the due diligence for the destitutes because in India police work and court proceedings never never end. My fatherbis fighting a court case regarding that property since 35 years and still no end in sight
- sokoloff 2mo ago
  10% mandatory free doesn’t seem that useful in terms of household formation. Suppose there are 200 million houses. Mathematically, 20 million of those houses must be maintained as free. If we’re right at the limit of 180 million occupied, I still can’t form a new household and move into any of the 20 million available homes, because that would violate the 10% rule. Now, if instead I want to take an open plot and build a house, do I have to build ten in order to occupy one, so the 10% rule can be complied with? Suppose a couple wants to separate and there are exactly 20 million vacant houses: “sorry, per the law, nothing is available…”
  - Guestmodinfo 2mo ago
    Mandatory housing doesn't means a 3 bedroom house always. It can also mean that if you are destitute, you get your own private room and a bed with common dining hall for the entire building. I have met destitutes in US also and they were scrambling to get 5dollar to get a roof over their heads for the night to escape the cold February winter. For a destitute person every bit counts and they can be helped by spending very little money by us. A lot of people are on the streets by choice like they cannot maintain a constant job or they have ADHD and they want to go to Austin for its music scene and in the meantime they are getting by busking for money. So govts can provide such people with simple but safe housing or better word be that roof over their heads every night. Different govts can develop this rudimentary but useful idea to serve their citizens. We hear some stories where families remain in constant fear of losing the roof over their heads while lots and lots of houses and buildings in India remain empty or are meagerly occupied. Lots of people are right away rejecting the idea but every idea has pros and cons and govts withtheir vast financial resources (printing fiat money which they do for oligarch friends) and administrative resources like police and construction departments can develop something by firstly working on a pilot project in a couple of towns and then tweaking the scheme as nuances become clear. India gives yearly gifts of 5 lakh crore rupees in tax benefits to the top oligarch friends. I'm sure universal housing for the entire world can be solved by India itself with this much money in one year itself
znpy 2mo ago
> Free use comes with responsibility: whoever occupies a home must keep it in excellent condition and cover its ongoing maintenance costs. If you can’t afford to properly maintain a particular home, you can’t occupy it That’s likely to be the loophole: have high costs fir maintenance and boom, you’re creating a method to evict people. Also, who defines what “excellent conditions” means? Some kind if HOA? And who’s checking? What happens when somebody fails at keeping a house in “excellent condition” ? Do they get evicted? Where do they go? If they couldn’t keep up with the previous house and are now burdened with the costs of moving somewhere else (maybe even in the same city) how can they keep up with maintenance of another house? Yeah, once again… “sounds good, doesn’t work”.
- overtone1000 2mo ago
  Agreed and then some. It's a decent thought experiment, but I think the lesson would be why housing (and many social problems) are so difficult to solve. But, the original tweet seems to frame it more like, "Why haven't we done this already?!"
jryan49 2mo ago
Who enforces "you must keep your house in good condition rules" that sounds like a lot of work to enforce. Wouldn't it be fun if a concrete company decides to bribe the government to make everyone replace their concrete every 5 years... This is why we have ownership and assign value to things in the first place.
OutOfHere 2mo ago
We should make structurally-sound one-thousand floor loosely-tapered pyramid-like megastructure buildings. This shape will make it structurally secure. The lower floors can be free, with the subsidization diminishing as the floors get higher. The higher floors can get progressively expensive. The higher floors literally pay for the lower floors. Sunlight can be transferred to the interior with optical cables, also downward from the very top. A significant portion of the internal volume will be non-residential space, with commercial or public value. The entire outer surface will be a sunlight and air collector that disperses the light and air throughout the interior. The pyramid should connect to itself and other pyramids via horizontal elevators. Vertical elevator requirements won't be brutally high if people can spend much of their time in the structure.
- dlcarrier 2mo ago
  With a pyramid shaped building, the value of a location is more about whether or not it has windows then how high it is.
  - OutOfHere 2mo ago
    Yes, windows are great for contributing to price asymmetry. There are however several reasons why windows can be overrated: 1. Light redistribution into the interior from about the 75% of the outer area, with the remaining 25% being reserved window space. 2. Proper artificial high-lumen reconstruction of the full visible solar light spectrum, with a natural humped emphasis on the indigo range. It's a shock that we haven't done this yet. 3. Excellent air ventilation into the interior. 4. With sunlight comes heat which adds to cooling costs. In contrast, the interior temperature remains relatively stable all year. We no longer live in pristine weather. Also, height without windows still has value due to exclusivity and pyramidal scarcity.
- philipallstar 2mo ago
  > The higher floors literally pay for the lower floors This happens already. Lots of social housing exists, and it's paid for by wealthy people's taxes. It's like how economy class tickets on aeroplanes can be below cost because of the higher-tier ticket-holders' ticket prices.
ameliaquining 2mo ago
This just sounds like land value tax but worse.
throwaway173738 2mo ago
“who gets the nicer plots” is probably the most important question. This proposal doesn’t actually change any of the structures that make some land more valuable than others. I’m guessing we’ll get more traction from making more places attractive places to live and work than we will by changing the rules around how land is acquired. What he’s proposing is essentially feudalism but with money instead of connections. I’m beginning to suspect that centralization consolidation of corporate structures are more of a causative factor for why land in cities is very expensive. Basically centralization results in small business closures, which reduces opportunity, which cuts the value of affected land. By contrast, if most products are produced by companies of only a few hundred employees, then every region has its own version of everything, and you now need a lot more surface area for the economy. More surface area means people can live more places. In my mind it all comes back to stronger antitrust enforcement and more progressivism.
- philipallstar 2mo ago
  > I’m beginning to suspect that centralization consolidation of corporate structures are more of a causative factor for why land in cities is very expensive. The reason is that there are far more people coming in than there is room to keep up with demand, so dwellings are chopped up into smaller dwellings and rented out, and house prices rocket. Cities are only so big, and putting endless additional people in them can be great if you own property, but terrible if you don't.
  - arrosenberg 2mo ago
    That’s the proximate cause, but OP has correctly identified that finance capitalism, outsourcing industry, and corporate consolidation are the forces that have driven people out of small towns and into cities looking for economic opportunity.
    - philipallstar 2mo ago
      I doubt corporate consolidation has driven people out of small towns. Outsourcing, yes, but that's globalisation rather than outsourcing per se. Finance capitalism - any sort of finance, whether capitalism or raised through taxes - can pull people somewhere. Washington DC would be a ghost town without the tax dollars to draw people to it. Those three are not the forces, and they aren't necessarily the most significant ones either.
ufmace 2mo ago
It's a silly idea that's full of holes: > Free use comes with responsibility: whoever occupies a home must keep it in excellent condition and cover its ongoing maintenance costs. If you can’t afford to properly maintain a particular home, you can’t occupy it Exactly who decides what constitutes "excellent" condition? Exactly what do you do with people who fail to keep their home in what whatever authority figure considers to be "excellent" condition? If I really want a property somebody else has, can I trash it right before inspection day or pay off the inspector to declare it non-excellent? What do you do with the poor hard-working family who just doesn't have the time or money to keep their place in "excellent" condition? What do you do with the mentally ill person who trashes their place every other week and can't afford to fix it? > For desirable homes or plots, anyone can apply during a fixed period. If demand exceeds supply, the new resident is chosen by lottery, regardless of income, wealth or status Lottery? Riiiiight. There's just no chance a simple lottery system will be able to manage the issue of to what extent particular homes or areas are desirable. There's no way a lottery system massive enough to even attempt to address the issue will actually be free of influence by wealth and status. > The country must always keep at least 10% of homes/plots available, creating real choice and mobility Exactly how is this going to work in practice? Which "10%" is going to be kept available, and how do we make it available? If we have a desirable city center with under 10% free, do we have to kick some people out to keep that 10%, or do we kick some people out for a while to build denser/taller buildings? Or will our "10%" only be in the undesirable areas? If I'm a rich person, can I pay off a poor person who happens to have a nicer house to move out to a somewhat less nice house so I can move in? What if I say, I'll pay you to voluntarily move out, or I'll pay someone else to trash the place or pay off the inspector to get you kicked out? Nobody is smart enough to dream up a new system in 10 minutes that actually covers every possible use-case and situation more fairly than our current capitalistic system that has existed and had all of its rules in practice and iterated over for hundreds of years.
- SoftTalker 2mo ago
  Since everyone gets a "free" house, employers would immediately cut everyone's wages by about third to pay the taxes that would be necessary to implement this scheme. So your disposable income (less mortgage/rent) would stay the same and you'd be paying rent indirectly through taxes.
alwa 2mo ago
I feel like all sorts of problems flow from treating homes as fungible commodities. As “a house, not a home,” as it were. Independent of residents’ schools, neighbors, transportation, jobs, culture, churches, family compositions, duties to others, and spectacular variety of lifestyles. One flavor of that ill is treating homes as financial investments, another flavor haunts social housing schemes over the years; this proposal is a different flavor of the same ill. > Anyone can take an available plot, pay to build a house on it, and live there for life So they can either pay an enormous amount to build their own one-off (but make a decision they’ll have to live with forever, no matter the changes in their future circumstances); or they can scrap over secondhand “free” housing stock via lottery? How is a plot created and made available in the first place? Since these don’t have homes on them, presumably they’re carved out of farmland way outside the exurbs, right? When is it 1/4-acre subdivisions, when is it larger or smaller? I’d invite the author to bend a New Yorker’s ear about the pleasures of affordable housing lotteries… or about NYCHA living. Speaking of which, how does this work as far as multi-family dwellings, and renewal? Or is the housing stock frozen in time at the moment these SFDs are built, save for the policed “maintenance”? What’s the penalty for somebody who doesn’t “maintain” to the cops’ standards—uprooted and then what? Moved to punitive housing, if they don’t have a few hundred thousand dollars to fund building a new house on an available plot?
faitswulff 2mo ago
On first blush, everyone gets housing and land ultimately belongs to the country sounds a lot like China.
- testaccount28 2mo ago
  i'm gonna make like three grand. look up the writings of Henry George.
  - dlcarrier 2mo ago
    One thing that's always bugged me about Georgism, or property taxes in general, is that you can't be self sufficient and it makes colonization mandatory. There's still plenty of parts of the world where people live off the land, and under Georgism, those people would need to be taxed. Imagine arresting all of the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island, because they occupy land but don't pay taxes on it.
    - testaccount28 2mo ago
      the sentinelese are sovereign, in my book. we could go do something which we call 'arresting them', i guess, but they would throw spears at us and chase us away, and then we would be at war. i'm fine with people "living off the land", as long as they don't consume the services my taxes pay for. colonization is obviously mandatory if we want more land. tax policy does not change that. nor does it make land more or less productive. i do not support the use of force to seize assets. however, i believe that an overwhelming majority of people would -- upon reflection -- consciously and without duress agree to pay taxes in exchange for a working government.
bradfa 2mo ago
In the USA step one would be to somehow build like 30 million houses so that the 10% extra rule could be established. That is an immense undertaking. Totally doable but it will take more than one government administration so has effectively zero chance of success.
- dlcarrier 2mo ago
  We already have a 10% rental vacancy rates in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, (https://ksdata.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/housing/4house1.pdf https://ksdata.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/housing/4house1.pdf) despite some of those states having the fastest growing populations (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/us-population-growth-by-state/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/us-population-growth-by-sta...), so if the remaining states adopted their approval process for building housing, we could get there without much difficulty. That alone would probably be enough of a relief on housing that we wouldn't need to take any of the more drastic measures, and it effectively costs nothing fiscally to implement.
SoftTalker 2mo ago
We've tried this in so many ways. Go look at any housing where the residents have no ownership stake and don't pay anything and tell me if you'd want your family living there.
trevithick 2mo ago
They said "I discussed with my family at the dinner table," but it looks more like "I discussed with my roommates after we got super high."
ItsMonkk 2mo ago
A land value tax with citizen's dividend reaches all of the goals he is trying to hit here, without any of the very obvious drawbacks. Just do that instead.
lovelybunch 2mo ago
[dead]
jack_h 2mo ago
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.” - F.A. Hayek > What if we completely redesign housing: making it a universal right, while keeping market-like mechanisms for creating and improving it? What follows is a list that basically says the State ultimately owns everything, but markets kind of exist insofar as it coincides with a goal of the State (universal housing). This is basically Fascism.
dlcarrier 2mo ago
The call for the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" in the declaration of independence is based on John Locke's attestation of the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. If we want to actually treat property as a right, including housing, we need to give it the priority that we give other rights, like life and speech. If someone wants to build a 100 square foot house with a single power outlet and single-pane windows, they should be allowed to do so, because it's better to live in a shed than out in the rough.
- sokoloff 2mo ago
  I think it's fair to require, at least in incorporated/dense areas, some minimum standards for sanitation, fire safety, and other aspects that present a health hazard to neighbors who are living near enough to be affected. Note that this is not "on-site parking minimums", "minimum lot sizes", "minimum front and side setbacks", etc. But, it is "indoor plumbing", "appropriate sewer or septic", and things like that that when done incorrectly present a present health hazard to neighbors. You want to build 100 square feet and an outhouse on land you own out in the boonies? Be my guest. In the city? No.

24 points by tosh 2mo ago

[dead]

10% mandatory free is very very good idea. And no one can keep houses as investment. Yes that's also awesome idea. I don't get it why should we allow capitalist forces to manipulate and act on fundamental necessities like housing, air, water, food (in India, the govt has been distributing practically free grains since we got freedom i think). I mean if you don't want to eat govt rationed grain then you can buy from free market but govt does gives dirt cheap rations to the poor. So these ideas are amazing. If I don't want to live in my parents' house then it should return to the govt pool. I should not have the right to sell it because why should I take someone else's right. I often think of creating a free housing for the destitute from one of my parents property. What's stopping me is that police and judiciary and politicians in India love to harass an innocent person till eternity. What if someone dies at my facility because I only want to provide free sleeping space to 20 people and not take daily care of the dwellers. Police also frowns upon housing unknown people on your property. I don't understand the logic. But police wants them to be destitute rather than they be some shady person living in your facility. So who has time for doing all the due diligence for the destitutes because in India police work and court proceedings never never end. My fatherbis fighting a court case regarding that property since 35 years and still no end in sight

sokoloff 2mo ago
10% mandatory free doesn’t seem that useful in terms of household formation. Suppose there are 200 million houses. Mathematically, 20 million of those houses must be maintained as free. If we’re right at the limit of 180 million occupied, I still can’t form a new household and move into any of the 20 million available homes, because that would violate the 10% rule. Now, if instead I want to take an open plot and build a house, do I have to build ten in order to occupy one, so the 10% rule can be complied with? Suppose a couple wants to separate and there are exactly 20 million vacant houses: “sorry, per the law, nothing is available…”
- Guestmodinfo 2mo ago
  Mandatory housing doesn't means a 3 bedroom house always. It can also mean that if you are destitute, you get your own private room and a bed with common dining hall for the entire building. I have met destitutes in US also and they were scrambling to get 5dollar to get a roof over their heads for the night to escape the cold February winter. For a destitute person every bit counts and they can be helped by spending very little money by us. A lot of people are on the streets by choice like they cannot maintain a constant job or they have ADHD and they want to go to Austin for its music scene and in the meantime they are getting by busking for money. So govts can provide such people with simple but safe housing or better word be that roof over their heads every night. Different govts can develop this rudimentary but useful idea to serve their citizens. We hear some stories where families remain in constant fear of losing the roof over their heads while lots and lots of houses and buildings in India remain empty or are meagerly occupied. Lots of people are right away rejecting the idea but every idea has pros and cons and govts withtheir vast financial resources (printing fiat money which they do for oligarch friends) and administrative resources like police and construction departments can develop something by firstly working on a pilot project in a couple of towns and then tweaking the scheme as nuances become clear. India gives yearly gifts of 5 lakh crore rupees in tax benefits to the top oligarch friends. I'm sure universal housing for the entire world can be solved by India itself with this much money in one year itself

znpy 2mo ago

> Free use comes with responsibility: whoever occupies a home must keep it in excellent condition and cover its ongoing maintenance costs. If you can’t afford to properly maintain a particular home, you can’t occupy it That’s likely to be the loophole: have high costs fir maintenance and boom, you’re creating a method to evict people. Also, who defines what “excellent conditions” means? Some kind if HOA? And who’s checking? What happens when somebody fails at keeping a house in “excellent condition” ? Do they get evicted? Where do they go? If they couldn’t keep up with the previous house and are now burdened with the costs of moving somewhere else (maybe even in the same city) how can they keep up with maintenance of another house? Yeah, once again… “sounds good, doesn’t work”.

overtone1000 2mo ago
Agreed and then some. It's a decent thought experiment, but I think the lesson would be why housing (and many social problems) are so difficult to solve. But, the original tweet seems to frame it more like, "Why haven't we done this already?!"

jryan49 2mo ago

Who enforces "you must keep your house in good condition rules" that sounds like a lot of work to enforce. Wouldn't it be fun if a concrete company decides to bribe the government to make everyone replace their concrete every 5 years... This is why we have ownership and assign value to things in the first place.

OutOfHere 2mo ago

We should make structurally-sound one-thousand floor loosely-tapered pyramid-like megastructure buildings. This shape will make it structurally secure. The lower floors can be free, with the subsidization diminishing as the floors get higher. The higher floors can get progressively expensive. The higher floors literally pay for the lower floors. Sunlight can be transferred to the interior with optical cables, also downward from the very top. A significant portion of the internal volume will be non-residential space, with commercial or public value. The entire outer surface will be a sunlight and air collector that disperses the light and air throughout the interior. The pyramid should connect to itself and other pyramids via horizontal elevators. Vertical elevator requirements won't be brutally high if people can spend much of their time in the structure.

dlcarrier 2mo ago
With a pyramid shaped building, the value of a location is more about whether or not it has windows then how high it is.
- OutOfHere 2mo ago
  Yes, windows are great for contributing to price asymmetry. There are however several reasons why windows can be overrated: 1. Light redistribution into the interior from about the 75% of the outer area, with the remaining 25% being reserved window space. 2. Proper artificial high-lumen reconstruction of the full visible solar light spectrum, with a natural humped emphasis on the indigo range. It's a shock that we haven't done this yet. 3. Excellent air ventilation into the interior. 4. With sunlight comes heat which adds to cooling costs. In contrast, the interior temperature remains relatively stable all year. We no longer live in pristine weather. Also, height without windows still has value due to exclusivity and pyramidal scarcity.
philipallstar 2mo ago
> The higher floors literally pay for the lower floors This happens already. Lots of social housing exists, and it's paid for by wealthy people's taxes. It's like how economy class tickets on aeroplanes can be below cost because of the higher-tier ticket-holders' ticket prices.

ameliaquining 2mo ago

This just sounds like land value tax but worse.

throwaway173738 2mo ago

“who gets the nicer plots” is probably the most important question. This proposal doesn’t actually change any of the structures that make some land more valuable than others. I’m guessing we’ll get more traction from making more places attractive places to live and work than we will by changing the rules around how land is acquired. What he’s proposing is essentially feudalism but with money instead of connections. I’m beginning to suspect that centralization consolidation of corporate structures are more of a causative factor for why land in cities is very expensive. Basically centralization results in small business closures, which reduces opportunity, which cuts the value of affected land. By contrast, if most products are produced by companies of only a few hundred employees, then every region has its own version of everything, and you now need a lot more surface area for the economy. More surface area means people can live more places. In my mind it all comes back to stronger antitrust enforcement and more progressivism.

philipallstar 2mo ago
> I’m beginning to suspect that centralization consolidation of corporate structures are more of a causative factor for why land in cities is very expensive. The reason is that there are far more people coming in than there is room to keep up with demand, so dwellings are chopped up into smaller dwellings and rented out, and house prices rocket. Cities are only so big, and putting endless additional people in them can be great if you own property, but terrible if you don't.
- arrosenberg 2mo ago
  That’s the proximate cause, but OP has correctly identified that finance capitalism, outsourcing industry, and corporate consolidation are the forces that have driven people out of small towns and into cities looking for economic opportunity.
  - philipallstar 2mo ago
    I doubt corporate consolidation has driven people out of small towns. Outsourcing, yes, but that's globalisation rather than outsourcing per se. Finance capitalism - any sort of finance, whether capitalism or raised through taxes - can pull people somewhere. Washington DC would be a ghost town without the tax dollars to draw people to it. Those three are not the forces, and they aren't necessarily the most significant ones either.

ufmace 2mo ago

It's a silly idea that's full of holes: > Free use comes with responsibility: whoever occupies a home must keep it in excellent condition and cover its ongoing maintenance costs. If you can’t afford to properly maintain a particular home, you can’t occupy it Exactly who decides what constitutes "excellent" condition? Exactly what do you do with people who fail to keep their home in what whatever authority figure considers to be "excellent" condition? If I really want a property somebody else has, can I trash it right before inspection day or pay off the inspector to declare it non-excellent? What do you do with the poor hard-working family who just doesn't have the time or money to keep their place in "excellent" condition? What do you do with the mentally ill person who trashes their place every other week and can't afford to fix it? > For desirable homes or plots, anyone can apply during a fixed period. If demand exceeds supply, the new resident is chosen by lottery, regardless of income, wealth or status Lottery? Riiiiight. There's just no chance a simple lottery system will be able to manage the issue of to what extent particular homes or areas are desirable. There's no way a lottery system massive enough to even attempt to address the issue will actually be free of influence by wealth and status. > The country must always keep at least 10% of homes/plots available, creating real choice and mobility Exactly how is this going to work in practice? Which "10%" is going to be kept available, and how do we make it available? If we have a desirable city center with under 10% free, do we have to kick some people out to keep that 10%, or do we kick some people out for a while to build denser/taller buildings? Or will our "10%" only be in the undesirable areas? If I'm a rich person, can I pay off a poor person who happens to have a nicer house to move out to a somewhat less nice house so I can move in? What if I say, I'll pay you to voluntarily move out, or I'll pay someone else to trash the place or pay off the inspector to get you kicked out? Nobody is smart enough to dream up a new system in 10 minutes that actually covers every possible use-case and situation more fairly than our current capitalistic system that has existed and had all of its rules in practice and iterated over for hundreds of years.

SoftTalker 2mo ago
Since everyone gets a "free" house, employers would immediately cut everyone's wages by about third to pay the taxes that would be necessary to implement this scheme. So your disposable income (less mortgage/rent) would stay the same and you'd be paying rent indirectly through taxes.

alwa 2mo ago

I feel like all sorts of problems flow from treating homes as fungible commodities. As “a house, not a home,” as it were. Independent of residents’ schools, neighbors, transportation, jobs, culture, churches, family compositions, duties to others, and spectacular variety of lifestyles. One flavor of that ill is treating homes as financial investments, another flavor haunts social housing schemes over the years; this proposal is a different flavor of the same ill. > Anyone can take an available plot, pay to build a house on it, and live there for life So they can either pay an enormous amount to build their own one-off (but make a decision they’ll have to live with forever, no matter the changes in their future circumstances); or they can scrap over secondhand “free” housing stock via lottery? How is a plot created and made available in the first place? Since these don’t have homes on them, presumably they’re carved out of farmland way outside the exurbs, right? When is it 1/4-acre subdivisions, when is it larger or smaller? I’d invite the author to bend a New Yorker’s ear about the pleasures of affordable housing lotteries… or about NYCHA living. Speaking of which, how does this work as far as multi-family dwellings, and renewal? Or is the housing stock frozen in time at the moment these SFDs are built, save for the policed “maintenance”? What’s the penalty for somebody who doesn’t “maintain” to the cops’ standards—uprooted and then what? Moved to punitive housing, if they don’t have a few hundred thousand dollars to fund building a new house on an available plot?

faitswulff 2mo ago

On first blush, everyone gets housing and land ultimately belongs to the country sounds a lot like China.

testaccount28 2mo ago
i'm gonna make like three grand. look up the writings of Henry George.
- dlcarrier 2mo ago
  One thing that's always bugged me about Georgism, or property taxes in general, is that you can't be self sufficient and it makes colonization mandatory. There's still plenty of parts of the world where people live off the land, and under Georgism, those people would need to be taxed. Imagine arresting all of the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island, because they occupy land but don't pay taxes on it.
  - testaccount28 2mo ago
    the sentinelese are sovereign, in my book. we could go do something which we call 'arresting them', i guess, but they would throw spears at us and chase us away, and then we would be at war. i'm fine with people "living off the land", as long as they don't consume the services my taxes pay for. colonization is obviously mandatory if we want more land. tax policy does not change that. nor does it make land more or less productive. i do not support the use of force to seize assets. however, i believe that an overwhelming majority of people would -- upon reflection -- consciously and without duress agree to pay taxes in exchange for a working government.

bradfa 2mo ago

In the USA step one would be to somehow build like 30 million houses so that the 10% extra rule could be established. That is an immense undertaking. Totally doable but it will take more than one government administration so has effectively zero chance of success.

dlcarrier 2mo ago
We already have a 10% rental vacancy rates in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, (https://ksdata.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/housing/4house1.pdf https://ksdata.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/housing/4house1.pdf) despite some of those states having the fastest growing populations (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/us-population-growth-by-state/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/us-population-growth-by-sta...), so if the remaining states adopted their approval process for building housing, we could get there without much difficulty. That alone would probably be enough of a relief on housing that we wouldn't need to take any of the more drastic measures, and it effectively costs nothing fiscally to implement.

SoftTalker 2mo ago

We've tried this in so many ways. Go look at any housing where the residents have no ownership stake and don't pay anything and tell me if you'd want your family living there.

trevithick 2mo ago

They said "I discussed with my family at the dinner table," but it looks more like "I discussed with my roommates after we got super high."

ItsMonkk 2mo ago

A land value tax with citizen's dividend reaches all of the goals he is trying to hit here, without any of the very obvious drawbacks. Just do that instead.

lovelybunch 2mo ago

[dead]

jack_h 2mo ago

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.” - F.A. Hayek > What if we completely redesign housing: making it a universal right, while keeping market-like mechanisms for creating and improving it? What follows is a list that basically says the State ultimately owns everything, but markets kind of exist insofar as it coincides with a goal of the State (universal housing). This is basically Fascism.

dlcarrier 2mo ago

The call for the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" in the declaration of independence is based on John Locke's attestation of the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. If we want to actually treat property as a right, including housing, we need to give it the priority that we give other rights, like life and speech. If someone wants to build a 100 square foot house with a single power outlet and single-pane windows, they should be allowed to do so, because it's better to live in a shed than out in the rough.

sokoloff 2mo ago
I think it's fair to require, at least in incorporated/dense areas, some minimum standards for sanitation, fire safety, and other aspects that present a health hazard to neighbors who are living near enough to be affected. Note that this is not "on-site parking minimums", "minimum lot sizes", "minimum front and side setbacks", etc. But, it is "indoor plumbing", "appropriate sewer or septic", and things like that that when done incorrectly present a present health hazard to neighbors. You want to build 100 square feet and an outhouse on land you own out in the boonies? Be my guest. In the city? No.