[rhn_mk1]

I think you missed the part where someone else is the owner. The parent stated that they're worried about a smaller and smaller group owning most everything.

Owning less, and not having to maintain the ownership of multiple different things is good. Having a few people own them for everyone is not.

Some sort of a solution, still compatible with your remark, might be reached if the new "specialized" ownership was distributed in a way that no single group amasses a lot of power.

[acdw]

This, precisely. I rent my house right now. It's a good deal because I don't have to worry about maintenance, property taxes, etc. But it's only worth it because I rent from someone who only owns a few properties -- he's a small player, so he has time to be responsive to my needs and his other renters' needs. It's a win-win situation this way.

There would be a problem if I rented from a property management corporation. Just from a logistics standpoint, they simply wouldn't have as many resources to help me when I have maintenance needs on my (really, their) house. That's ignoring all the other problems that come with concentrated ownership -- the buying of political power, etc.

I don't know what the answer is, I wish I did. Maybe something like what you say, a sort of "specialized" ownership. I don't know what that would look like though.