I do not understand what you are trying to convey through either of these points. Would you mind clarifying?
UBI indirectly and unfairly benefits only the people who control those goods and services. If everyone made $1000 more per month, housing prices would raise up to that amount for everyone. This means the majority of the UBI raise would go into just the landlords pockets.
This is why many welfare programs are expense- or need-dependent, because it maximizes the benefit to those who need it without impacting price inflation as much.
Might as well start with:
- Removal/reduction in zoning
- Automate construction approval workflows
- Leverage eminent domain to aggregate land, and sell for profit to the builders.
Its just a win-win-win (given the views / property values would be reduced regardless without extra housing causing SF/LA/Seattle levels of homeless people):
- Homeowners get paid, by the city / local gov, at market rate or slightly above market rate.
- The city / local government has a new profit stream, to be used for more housing / services / reduced taxes. They would aggregate land, re-zone it, get approvals completed, and sell the whole package to the highest bidding developers.
- Developers reduce costs to aggregate land and due to interest payments while waiting for all the land + approvals.
- City gets to better plan the hosing market, i.e. superblocks, transit, etc.
- City dwellers get more access to housing (i.e. cheaper housing), and possibly reduced taxes. Also reduced crime and homelessness because the city is affordable for everyone.
There are ways to achieve all of the above that doesn't require destroying income-elastic priced markets. UBI is not a good solution.
UBI doesn't work well at all, like you stated, if there isn't a big increase in the supply of housing. For example, Seattle needs 10x more housing than it has today, and in 10 years it'll need 100x more housing than it has today. Ideally, all of these should be new luxury condo buildings, with 1000-3000 sqft condos, driving prices of all housing down by 10x. I would really like to see the city make this their only priority.
Seattle has about 740k people and about 370k housing units. 10 times the housing units would be enough for the entire state population at an average occupancy of 2 persons/unit. 100 times would be enough for roughly every US state bordering on or one state out from the Pacific Ocean.
Seattle pretty emphatically does not need that much housing.
Density also facilitates business and pulls in even more workers, who are also customers and it’s a positive cycle.
Seattle needs 100x more housing in the next 10 years if it wants to continue to be a competitive city. As a resident I sure hope it does.
Since they can afford higher prices, people will charge those higher prices. And you are back where you started.
UBI only gives everyone extra money if it is unfunded; typical UBI proposals are funded by either increased progressive income taxes or cutting other spending (which produces income to the recipient), and so is (in first order effects) zero-sum. (Typically, it replaces rapid clawbacks from means testing with slow clawbacks by progressive tax increases.)