Socialist Progressives
Related: About this forumHow to Get Rid of Your Landlord and Socialize American Housing, in 3 Easy Steps
http://www.thenation.com/article/how-to-get-rid-of-your-landlord-and-socialize-american-housing-in-3-easy-steps/The true culprit is so deeply embedded in American notions of wealth, rights, and property that we cannot see it for the terrible economy policy it is: private housing. Real estate as a store of private wealth is the rotten tree that sprouts these diseased branches, and the solution is to quit pruning twigs and chop the sucker down.
Ill propose some models and policies that can do the trick, but firstwhat is private housing, exactly?
First off, it is mostly land. That is, real estate is the most valuable asset form in the United States, and the majority of that value is not that of the building itself, which depreciates until it requires renovation, but of the unimproved land it sits onthe location. Imagine a skyscraper filled with sumptuous luxury condominiums, located in the center of Antarctica: However many millions had gone into its cutting-edge furnishings, without a community (parks, transit options, schools, shops, etc.) around to situate it in a desirable location, that building would be worthless as a real-estate investment. These community resources are reflected in what is commonly called land value, but is more precisely the price of the location. Rather than flowing to the community that created it, however, it is captured by individual real-estate owners.
More fundamentally, though, what we call private housing is actually public land that government has set aside for private purposes. Land, save the bits beneath ones feet, cant be possessed, as a phone or a shirt can. What a land owner possesses is a deeda voucher one may redeem with the government to marshal violence (through policing) to exclude all competing claimants. The government established this location-exclusion program, designating pieces of nature as being solely for the use of the deed holders, and devoting its violent capabilities to enforcing that designation. In the 19th century, the government enacted homesteading laws to allow frontier settlers to claim indigenous lands as their own. If those deeds were challenged, the federal government sent troops to back them up. Or look at the 20th century, when the government funded highways and commuter transitthe Federal Housing Administration extended loan guarantees to new housing developments in order to create a massive suburban private-housing stock. The entire apparatus by which housing is privately owned is created by the governments decisions to subsidize or protect certain interests.
Ostensibly, the government pursues the public interest, but treating real estate as privately owned wealth, as a financial asset, has devastating public effects. On a grand scale, treating land as an asset allows speculators to create bubbles large enough to threaten global economic collapse. The housing bubblereally a land bubbleof the last decade bid the price of land up so high, concocting such dangerous complex financial instruments to turn out so many sub-prime mortgages, that the burst was enough to sink some of the worlds most profitable firms, plunge us into the Great Recession, extinguish the majority of all black wealth in the United States, bankrupt pension funds worldwide, and destroy the governments of Greece, Iceland, and other nations.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Based on the parts you did excerpt, though, I'd note that even 'land ownership' is merely rental in most places in the US. Unless you pay 'property taxes' on an ongoing basis, the public will come along and take it away from you again. Very few parts of the country that don't have property taxes and can be said to have true 'ownership'.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Still partway through, but I know I'd be far happier if large developers weren't allowed simply to build for profit without any real oversight other than zoning and bare minimum values. For decades, the large field between my residential street and one of the main roads in town was a fenced off testing field to see how well various types of coatings for metal weathered. The company that owned it had said they planned to decommission it at a town hall meeting and would allow landholders on our street whose land adjoined it to buy the land behind their properties back to that main road. Fast forward a decade or two, they finally decommission it, and what happens? They sell the whole thing to a developer... for less than the price any one of the dozen or so property owners who adjoined the lot would have paid simply for their 'strip', much less the entire lot. The developer sticks in two dozen tiny houses and makes a million or so in profit off of land they bought for 10 or 12 thousand, while the rest of us are cut off from increasing our lot sizes and given a bunch of new neighbours whose windows look directly out at us in an area we never had to particularly worry about before, so that we suddenly have to keep curtains closed a lot more.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)for later study then.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For a start, everyone should be compensated for their exclusion from passage over certain locations on the earth. To do this, we ought to levy an exclusion fee whereby the location price of the property in question would be returned to its rightful recipient, the community. As long as land value is socially created and land ownership is duty-free, a theft is occurring.
But why endow private profit-motivated interests control over construction at all? There is no reason to suspect that a given property-development capitalist should be more capable of determining for a community what optimally desirable new buildings to produce than the community itself is. Luckily, there is an entity capable of turning development over to the most concerned parties: nonprofit community land trusts, their boards typically composed at least one-third of residents, take land off the market, and lease homes long-term to residents at below-market rates, retaining the majority of the home equity gained over time.
Ultimately, though, the best antidote to private housing is public housing. Unfortunately, the result of American city planners contempt for poor and especially black people is clear: squalid conditions, severe architecture, and placement of public housing in neighborhoods starved for educational, healthcare, and other crucial resources. It is common in the United States to suppose that these conditions are a byproduct of cultural defects particular to black and other poor people. As community organizer Karen Narefsky writes, While few would blame potholed roads on the drivers who use them, a great effort has been made to attribute the degeneration of public housing in the US to public housing residents themselves.