Should housing be nationalized?

[Ethel mermania]

So the government is going to build and inspect to ensure proper building codes and standards are met?

Well yes, such a thing isn't terribly uncommon.

Who determines where the homes are built?

The same way it is usually determined at the moment: where there is demand.

How do I get a beachfront house or apt.?

Apply for it. But priority would likely go to the folk in the area that need it.

1. I can tell you, I can make a contractor redo the work till it meets my satisfaction or the contractor does not get paid. I have no such authority on an in-house job.

2. A builder risks his own money when assessing demand and return on investment. Whats the Hazzard when the government does it, and in this case the government would be telling you where to live.

3. I grew up on a city beach, my mental and physical health would be improved by being there again. Why isn't my need greater? And why should someone else determine it?

[The New California Republic]

I can tell you, I can make a contractor redo the work till it meets my satisfaction or the contractor does not get paid. I have no such authority on an in-house job.

There would likely be no financial contractual relation directly between you and the housebuilder whatsoever in what is being proposed here, so again such a concept would be redundant.

A builder risks his own money when assessing demand and return on investment. Whats the Hazzard when the government does it, and in this case the government would be telling you where to live.

The risk here is that the houses would not represent a good return in terms of use value, so the government would have an incentive to build in the correct areas where there is demand. Not doing so would be a waste of resources.

I grew up on a city beach, my mental and physical health would be improved by being there again. Why isn't my need greater? And why should someone else determine it?

I didn't say your need wasn't greater, if it was for genuine health reasons then that'd be taken into consideration. And even housing nowadays is largely determined by the actions of others as well as circumstance, we don't have free reign to move into any place we please.

[-Astoria-]

So the government is going to build and inspect to ensure proper building codes and standards are met?

Pardon, is this sort of thing not common where you live?

Imagine the government even having proper building guidelines in the first place.

[Novus America]

Absolutely not.
Chad distributism > Virgin central planning.

Seriously this would wipe out most of the net worth of thr middle class and much of the working class who have most of their net worth in housing.

Owning your own house is vital to getting ahead economically.

Why deny people that? Also with no private investment and governments being some of the worst land lords in the country this is a terrible idea.

However there is a much better option. Apply a progressive land value tax based on use. For example say for the value of land you live on it would be maybe 1% on any value over $1,000,000 (higher for family farms). If you do not own it but rent it out, 2.5%. If you leave it vacant 5%. (exact numbers can be negotiated).

The money from this tax would then go to support and subsidize housing programs for those in need and build/rehabilitate affordable housing.
But these would be largely cooperatives or rent (based on what you can afford)/work to own (if you have no ownership is something you are more likely to trash it because you have less incentive not to, see public housing in many US cities).

Existing housing projects would be converted to cooperatives where possible.

Also create more veterans housing and also rebuild mental health institutions (but more humane and open than the 40s ones) for those who cannot manage on their own. A large percentage of the homeless have mental health issues.

Additionally some sort of government savings model, like in Singapore, say 1% is taken out of everyone’s income, the distributed evenly into housing savings accounts that could be used for down payments, paying off principal and cover rental deposits.

Increase, not decrease housing ownership. It is not a coincidence housing ownership rates have a good correspondence to levels of wealth equality, and as ownership rates have decreased, inequality has increased.

The postwar home ownership boom was connected to the massive increases in real wealth during that period.

[Novus America]

Why is there a housing crisis in the USA?

Most of America is full of nothing.

Because people want to disproportionately live in the most expensive areas, and not in the areas with enough housing and land.

People want to live in Silicon Valley more than Detroit.

There is more than enough land/housing (though a lot of it was abandoned in the 70s) but it is not necessarily in places people want to live due to job shifts amongst other things.

The triple ills of deindustrialization, demilitarization and deinstitutionalization largely caused the issue.
Ultimately any cure requires addressing and reversing those.

[Ethel mermania]

I'm not a massive fan of the state to keep things efficient, but barring gross mismanagement and gross misuse of public funds, I think we can afford a touch of inefficiency when it comes down to the provision of basic human needs—water, food, and shelter—at the very least. In any case, if there's gross mismanagement or misuse, I daresay that's probably not going to be a direct result of state involvement, but rather a problem with that management in specific, which has remedies.

I'm also not a fan of pointing to Singapore—Singapore is a bit of a black sheep when it comes to...anything, in political science, and is the quintessential outlier case, hence being a poor example—but Singapore seems to be able to handle public housing without making the results the equivalent of Khrushchyovkas.

Though, there is perhaps one thing to keep in mind about mass housing and effectively housing everybody—which is what I'm assuming where we're going with nationalised housing, as opposed to just for shits and giggles—it might be that those mass-built housing is probably not going to look as nice and idyllic as an American detached house. People will need to get used to possibly dreary-looking apartments, if that's meant to be a long-term solution. But hey, I've spent some time in continental Europe, particularly Vienna, and the apartments built by worker co-operatives and unions during the 1920's and early 1930's aren't too bad.

The answer to the titular question is going to be a boring "maybe" from me. I don't quite believe in expropriating stuff from folks—probably because my mum owns two houses, one in the city and one at the seaside, this one gets a little personal—but I can also see how "investing" in a few dozen homes is absolutely ridiculous (considering the consequences of doing such). Hell, I lived in Vancouver for a notable portion of my life, and I understand that it's gotten very expensive due to precisely things like this, making it rather difficult for me to contemplate going back, so that's also more on the personal side.

So the government is going to build and inspect to ensure proper building codes and standards are met?

Pardon, is this sort of thing not common where you live?

Private contractors build public owned horsing to government specification in the states.

Government puts out a bid package for a parcel, says how many buildings, how many apts, parks, schools, community and retail space and it goes out to bid. By law its usually to the lowest bidding contractor.

[Vistulange]

Additionally some sort of government savings model, like in Singapore, say 1% is taken out of everyone’s income, the distributed evenly into housing savings accounts that could be used for down payments, paying off principal and cover rental deposits.

If you're going to go Singapore, go full Singapore, don't go in half-cocked.

For reference, housing in Singapore is owned by, operated by, and managed by the government itself. While houses are "sold" in colloquial terms, they are in fact 99-year leases (the oldest of which are nearing the ends of their terms, but it's not rubbish to assume they'll just be renewed for their occupants). Anyway, there's no need to digress here.

Point being, Singapore is a rather poor example to withdraw the state from the whole affair and just have it institute a new tax to be funnelled to home ownership, since Singapore's government is heavily involved in not only the housing market, but also the distribution and occupancy of those houses.

Pardon, is this sort of thing not common where you live?

Private contractors build public owned horsing to government specification in the states.

Government puts out a bid package for a parcel, says how many buildings, how many apts, parks, schools, community and retail space and it goes out to bid. By law its usually to the lowest bidding contractor.

I'm referring more to the safety and standards inspections of ongoing/finished construction, not the process by which land is distributed.

[Lady Victory]

Yes. Housing should be a right, not a privilege.

[Ethel mermania]

Additionally some sort of government savings model, like in Singapore, say 1% is taken out of everyone’s income, the distributed evenly into housing savings accounts that could be used for down payments, paying off principal and cover rental deposits.

If you're going to go Singapore, go full Singapore, don't go in half-cocked.

For reference, housing in Singapore is owned by, operated by, and managed by the government itself. While houses are "sold" in colloquial terms, they are in fact 99-year leases (the oldest of which are nearing the ends of their terms, but it's not rubbish to assume they'll just be renewed for their occupants). Anyway, there's no need to digress here.

Point being, Singapore is a rather poor example to withdraw the state from the whole affair and just have it institute a new tax to be funnelled to home ownership, since Singapore's government is heavily involved in not only the housing market, but also the distribution and occupancy of those houses.

Pardon, is this sort of thing not common where you live?

Private contractors build public owned horsing to government specification in the states.

Government puts out a bid package for a parcel, says how many buildings, how many apts, parks, schools, community and retail space and it goes out to bid. By law its usually to the lowest bidding contractor.

I'm referring more to the safety and standards inspections of ongoing/finished construction, not the process by which land is distributed.[/quote]

Yes government inspects. My point was that when a contractor does not meet a contract or safety spec the contractor doesn't get paid. ,( Full disclosure thats part of my job). When the government builds it, there is no leverage to force it to be done right.

[Vladilan]

I think housing should be nationalised. A lot of houses have their prices inflated by renting etc, so government control over the housing market should happen.

[Novus America]

Additionally some sort of government savings model, like in Singapore, say 1% is taken out of everyone’s income, the distributed evenly into housing savings accounts that could be used for down payments, paying off principal and cover rental deposits.

If you're going to go Singapore, go full Singapore, don't go in half-cocked.

For reference, housing in Singapore is owned by, operated by, and managed by the government itself. While houses are "sold" in colloquial terms, they are in fact 99-year leases (the oldest of which are nearing the ends of their terms, but it's not rubbish to assume they'll just be renewed for their occupants). Anyway, there's no need to digress here.

Point being, Singapore is a rather poor example to withdraw the state from the whole affair and just have it institute a new tax to be funnelled to home ownership, since Singapore's government is heavily involved in not only the housing market, but also the distribution and occupancy of those houses.

Which I addressed in the rest of my post! I guess you just ignored the whole part in where I discuss how the government should fund and ensure adequate housing construction…. And help distribute it…
Why did you completely whole land value tax thing to subsidize building housing I wrote about?

I mean if you cut out the part of my post that says exactly that, then complain I did not address that, that is just ridiculous.

ADDITIONALLY means in addition to something else. Hence why I used the word additionally…

As in that for this to work it should be in addition to my previous proposals outlined above the additionally…

Although I do not need to replicate Singapore exactly given the very different land density and our higher birth rates amongst other differences, which would make full ownership potentially more viable than the 99 year lease (which is effectively ownership) although in very high density low birthrate areas like NYC the 99 year lease might be used.

[Novus America]

Yes. Housing should be a right, not a privilege.

This is a non sequitur though. Something being a right does not require it be completely nationalized.
The Bismarck model of universal healthcare for example.

Distributism is a viable method of ensuring adequate housing without nationalization especially as we have more than enough land (my distributist approach would give everyone access to housing but not in a guaranteed area, you might have to move to get it).

[Picairn]

Why is there a housing crisis in the USA?

Most of America is full of nothing.

Precisely, it's that same "nothing" which makes homeless people camp out in the large cities. No sensible person would want to live in dying rural Rust Belt towns.

[Lady Victory]

Something being a right does not require it be completely nationalized.

I disagree. Without nationalization the right to a home cannot truly be exercised or protected; ergo if it is truly a right then nationalization would be a requirement. Otherwise it would merely be one of those imaginary "rights" the government tells we have yet never bothers to protect, a la the right to bear arms. If I wish to exercise my Second Amendment rights but lack the actual means to do so because of my economic status then I don't really have the right to bear arms, do I? I have the option to bear arms if I can afford it. The same would be true if housing was a right yet was, likewise, locked behind a paywall.

[Novus America]

Something being a right does not require it be completely nationalized.

I disagree. Without nationalization the right to a home cannot truly be exercised or protected; ergo if it is truly a right then nationalization would be a requirement. Otherwise it would merely be one of those imaginary "rights" the government tells we have yet never bothers to protect, a la the right to bear arms. If I wish to exercise my Second Amendment rights but lack the actual means to do so because of my economic status then I don't really have the right to bear arms, do I? I have the option to bear arms if I can afford it. The same would be true if housing was a right yet was, likewise, locked behind a paywall.

Again see the Bismarck model of public healthcare. Health insurance is guaranteed, but not completely nationalized. The government subsidizes and provides options for those who cannot afford it and do not have it from other sources. Non governmental health insurance both exists and is still available under that model.

65% of Americans already own their homes. Taking away their houses, or their ownership rights to them does not solve it, nor is it necessary. In fact it makes it worse.
The Americans who already own their own homes do not need their tights and equity in them taken away, and would in fact be harmed.
Again that is the source of much of their net wealth, home ownership is critical to the middle class and critical to getting ahead economically.

Which is also why complete nationalization could never pass.

The solution is not taking away houses from the 65% who have houses, rather it is to ensure those who do not have affordable housing have options they can afford via government subsidies for affordable housing.

For example if you simply made it where the government would provide you basic housing in exchange for a certain percentage of your income, say 33% regardless of what the total income is, then everyone would have access to housing regardless of their income.

But in that case only those basic housing units would need to be built or otherwise acquired by the government (perhaps owned by government chartered and subsidized but not government owned cooperatives rather than directly owned by the government. Or a rent/work to own system could be provided were the government transferee ownership to the tenant after certain conditions were met). Eminent domain could be perhaps used to acquire abandoned properties but much of these are already owned by local governments anyways. But properties not abandoned and in use would not need to be acquired.

Those who have higher incomes would be better off opting out, because they could get a less basic house for the same amount of their income (although they would still have to support it via some sort of taxation given the rents might not cover the costs for those of low enough income). If the housing provided was say worth $900 a month on the private market and the payments 33% of income then generally only those making less than $2,700 a month would want it. Those making more would be better off buying or renting their own in most cases. But those making only $600 a month would generally want to use such housing because they could not get an equivalent level of housing (and possibly no housing at all) at $200 a month.

You would not need to seize or nationalize housing from those who already have it, and those who can afford it via other means could still get it by those means.

On the Second Amendment example why would that require nationalization when you could simply have the government buy guns and give them free of charge to those who do not already have them?

Why would the government have to seize my guns to provide you one?

[Novus America]

Why is there a housing crisis in the USA?

Most of America is full of nothing.

Precisely, it's that same "nothing" which makes homeless people camp out in the large cities. No sensible person would want to live in dying rural Rust Belt towns.

Towns that were not dying before the outsourcing and defense cuts killed them
Sure not as many people want to live in Alexandria LA after the base there was shut down by the idiotic defense cuts in the 90s and after the mental hospital and surrounding factories were drastically reduced do to bad trade policies and bad mental health policies.

But those things did not have to happen and could be reversed. And then more people would want to live their again, and buy up and rehabilitate the abandoned housing available there.

The Rust Belt was created by bad government policies on the first place.

[Victorious Decepticons]

I own my current house free and clear. This has freed me from paying rent, and the pain of poverty that had gone with that bill. Even with "low" rent, there were times I had to choose between it and decent food, or medical care, or do work while in extreme physical pain just to make sure I paid it.

A nationalization scheme would involve me paying rent or the equivalent thereof (likely in the form of taxes), or at best, having to cry poor every year to avoid it (and then be relegated to the worst areas, such as some "projects" apartment complex or a slum). This would be a very serious detriment to my well-being. It would return me to the horrible position I was in before - and worse, there would be no visible way out of the situation. I would oppose any such thing with every fiber of my being. NO, housing should NOT be nationalized!

The government can provide poverty housing if it wants, but in no way should they interfere with people's private property, or the ability to buy and sell said property as individuals.

[Lady Victory]

I own my current house free and clear. This has freed me from paying rent, and the pain of poverty that had gone with that bill. Even with "low" rent, there were times I had to choose between it and decent food, or medical care, or do work while in extreme physical pain just to make sure I paid it.

A nationalization scheme would involve me paying rent or the equivalent thereof (likely in the form of taxes), or at best, having to cry poor every year to avoid it. This would be a very serious detriment to my well-being. It would return me to the horrible position I was in before - and worse, there would be no visible way out of the situation. I would oppose any such thing with every fiber of my being. NO, housing should NOT be nationalized!

The government can provide poverty housing if it wants, but in no way should they interfere with people's private property, or the ability to buy and sell said property as individuals.

Who said anything about taking your house away from you? What do you think nationalization is?

[Victorious Decepticons]

I own my current house free and clear. This has freed me from paying rent, and the pain of poverty that had gone with that bill. Even with "low" rent, there were times I had to choose between it and decent food, or medical care, or do work while in extreme physical pain just to make sure I paid it.

A nationalization scheme would involve me paying rent or the equivalent thereof (likely in the form of taxes), or at best, having to cry poor every year to avoid it. This would be a very serious detriment to my well-being. It would return me to the horrible position I was in before - and worse, there would be no visible way out of the situation. I would oppose any such thing with every fiber of my being. NO, housing should NOT be nationalized!

The government can provide poverty housing if it wants, but in no way should they interfere with people's private property, or the ability to buy and sell said property as individuals.

Who said anything about taking your house away from you? What do you think nationalization is?

Nationalization eliminates the private ownership of whatever is nationalized. Otherwise, it's private!

[Novus America]

I own my current house free and clear. This has freed me from paying rent, and the pain of poverty that had gone with that bill. Even with "low" rent, there were times I had to choose between it and decent food, or medical care, or do work while in extreme physical pain just to make sure I paid it.

A nationalization scheme would involve me paying rent or the equivalent thereof (likely in the form of taxes), or at best, having to cry poor every year to avoid it. This would be a very serious detriment to my well-being. It would return me to the horrible position I was in before - and worse, there would be no visible way out of the situation. I would oppose any such thing with every fiber of my being. NO, housing should NOT be nationalized!

The government can provide poverty housing if it wants, but in no way should they interfere with people's private property, or the ability to buy and sell said property as individuals.

Who said anything about taking your house away from you? What do you think nationalization is?

“Nationalization (or nationalisation in British English) is the process of transforming privately-owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Complete nationalization would by necessity involve transferring his ownership rights in his property to the government. Which would not benefit him and in fact harm him.

[Kerwa]

On the Second Amendment example why would that require nationalization when you could simply have the government buy guns and give them free of charge to those who do not already have them?

Why would the government have to seize my guns to provide you one?

There used to be a program that gave surplus army rifles to civilians that underwent training. I’m not sure of the details, but I think it was a nominal fee + some time and you’d get an M1.

[The Hazar Amisnery]

A little bit of socialism wont ruin America so yes

[Novus America]

On the Second Amendment example why would that require nationalization when you could simply have the government buy guns and give them free of charge to those who do not already have them?

Why would the government have to seize my guns to provide you one?

There used to be a program that gave surplus army rifles to civilians that underwent training. I’m not sure of the details, but I think it was a nominal fee + some time and you’d get an M1.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program
It still exists, but now charges a $1,000 or more for a Garand.

But yes I think in the past it charged only a nominal amount if you met its training requirements.

Something like the way it was in a sense could apply to housing.

[New haven america]

Well, considering the average 2 bedroom house in my state costs $600k, imma have to say yes.

[New haven america]

I own my current house free and clear. This has freed me from paying rent, and the pain of poverty that had gone with that bill. Even with "low" rent, there were times I had to choose between it and decent food, or medical care, or do work while in extreme physical pain just to make sure I paid it.

A nationalization scheme would involve me paying rent or the equivalent thereof (likely in the form of taxes), or at best, having to cry poor every year to avoid it (and then be relegated to the worst areas, such as some "projects" apartment complex or a slum). This would be a very serious detriment to my well-being. It would return me to the horrible position I was in before - and worse, there would be no visible way out of the situation. I would oppose any such thing with every fiber of my being. NO, housing should NOT be nationalized!

The government can provide poverty housing if it wants, but in no way should they interfere with people's private property, or the ability to buy and sell said property as individuals.

You don't know what nationalization is.