That way private landlords can run their business how they want, and if a customer sees value in what they offer they can pay for it.
There have been experiment with public housing over the years all over the world and in the US. The anyone can afford was achieved by pegging rent in the federal programs at 25% of income.
The problem is “any luxuries” boils down to safe, maintained properties not riddled with crime. To get economies of scale they were built as large projects which essentially created high density zones of inescapable poverty. They were / are extremely unpopular with literally everyone, especially the people that live there. Unfortunately the alternatives don’t scale well in the US given all the exact same reasons that cause housing to be so expensive in the first place.
What the US tried was to stick all the crazy in a tiny area so it became a self reinforcing problem. We’ve adjusted to paying market rates for subsidized housing which spreads the crazy around, but unfortunately costs more than just building housing.
End minimum parking requirements, end min room size requirements, let lots of different types of housing be built.
There is plenty of cheap land in the middle of the country. The problem is getting (and wanting to get) there.
Or some such scheme. It should provide a strong disincentive on very expensive apartments while allowing the most vulnerable population to live comfortably in 80% of the city's rental offerings.
Why is that useful?
> levy a tax on the 20% most expensive apartments
This attitude pisses me off. When is enough taxation fair? Seemingly minor taxes increases in other areas add up to a lot extra in total. I already pay over 50% taxes[1] in New Zealand, but the same attitude as yours is common.
I do think it is great to help the less fortunate - that is what most of government taxes are spent on, and why low earners get a boost by paying less tax.
The right answer isn't retributive taxes.
The right answer is working out how to fix the real estate markets, which are broken because residential property is an investment, when it should be just for housing. Residential property should not be an investment for financial profit - a Ponzi scheme which is screwing everyone except the well off.
In New Zealand our property market is as broken as the USA from what I can tell. Building more houses helps according to micro-economics but it isn't the answer: New Zealand is building lots of houses but prices for the majority remain out of reach. There is enough land by definition.
[1] Top tax rate in New Zealand is 39% and GST (NZ sales tax) is 15%. And Most investments are taxable here. I'm currently investigating residential real estate investing because there's few other reasonable choices. I hate property investment but all the government incentives push me towards it.