But in a very real sense that's just pulling the ladder up and further securing the position of those who got there first. Something else / additionally has to happen here.
1. THERE IS A LABOR SHORTAGE IN CONSTRUCTION
2. ZONING WILL NEVER BE REFORMED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
3. EVERYONE ASSUMES THE PRICE OF HOUSING WILL CONTINUE TO GROW MORE THAN INFLATION
All 3 highlight a broken market due to inflated costs. The only solution is to slow the market down and play chicken with owners.
> pulling the ladder up and further securing the position of those who got there first
Such is life. You can't drastically change a market overnight. You'll get voted out of office.
Welcome to the late 70s. This is how it was then too. Be happy we don't have a Volcker
We've done it once before (World War 2 - in that case it was even retroactive, so you couldn't hike rents in anticipation), and it increased homeownership rate by the highest rate in the 20th century (something like 5% jump in a few years) by making leasing less profitable than selling.
Would also have to be combined with more building, but it does work. If you make investing in real estate less appealing (via rent control), people will sell - unless they're just hiding money (i.e. overseas investors).
You would probably have to go on a crusade in order to promote it, and it would require a massive anti-landowner propaganda push (of the sort that existed during WWII), but it's theoretically doable.
One avenue is stronger property rights. Don't let local governments and randos have an opportunity to make demands or issue denials.
It took me nearly four years to get approvals and permits to repair an existing home in California. Building a new one seems impossible.
"New York University economics Professor Edward Wolff, a specialist in real estate statistics, said 4.48 percent of American households owned three or more residential properties in 1998, compared with fewer than 1 percent in the early '90s."
I wonder what that number is today...
I mean that’s the theory, right? It’s never been truly tried?
I would even tie some portion of primary home property tax to the density of people living on a lot.
> it's theoretically doable
So is a constitutional amendment banning sloppy blowjobs but that is completely unrealistic.
Jesus HN has gotten dumb.
[0] - https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...