[noasaservice]

Would you be OK with pricing food so high that only a limited amount of people could eat, with the pure purpose of "make more money for our stakeholders"?

How about the same, for water?

How about the same, for basic medical?

How about the same, for electricity?

Profiteering and gatekeeping essential things to live is ethically abhorrent. And yes, housing SHOULD be a right. Instead we have "right to badmouth government" and a bunch of other 'self-actualization' (Maslow) style needs, but We collectively ignore the bottom ones, like food/water/shelter.

[lotsofpulp]

>And yes, housing SHOULD be a right.

This is easy to say. Can you elaborate how to implement this “right”?

Do 330M people in the US have a “right” to live on the California coastline? It is doable, can always downsize to Hong Kong style living.

Perhaps Hong Kong size abodes are too small. Then how much space do you propose per person and per family?

[kmeisthax]

You don't need to go as far as to demand detailed central plans, as if the parent poster is a Soviet tankie. All you have to do is get rid of the already-extant central planning regime that the US has, which is specifically designed to keep land expensive.

Or, in other words: "housing is a human right" does not need to be construed as a positive obligation.

Even if we decided on positive-freedom housing rights, it doesn't mean giving everyone a California beachfront property. This is the thing a lot of Americans don't get about positive rights in other countries: when they exist, it just means that the country is going to use tax money to pay for and provide that good. This works for the same reason that welfare programs work: the existence of a large buyer, even one that's lowballing, provides price stability to suppliers.

California beachfront property can remain expensive, but the houses behind it should be allowed to build up to whatever density that the market will support.

[lotsofpulp]

> Or, in other words: "housing is a human right" does not need to be construed as a positive obligation.

I struggle to think of a way to construe it that is not a positive obligation.

Increasing zoning is not making housing a human right. It is bringing down housing prices, which is great, but it would make words meaningless if it qualified for “housing as a human right”.

On the other hand, the government reimbursing everyone for the annual cost of housing in the 20th percentile of the US is something actionable. For example, if housing at 20th percentile is $12k per year, then everyone gets $12k per year to spend on housing. They can choose to move to wherever they want.

And that example is basically UBI, so might as well just advertise that as the solution.

[noasaservice]

> You don't need to go as far as to demand detailed central plans, as if the parent poster is a Soviet tankie. All you have to do is get rid of the already-extant central planning regime that the US has, which is specifically designed to keep land expensive.

I'm not advocating public execution of billionaires here.

I'm talking about getting rid of companies like RealPage ( https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r... ) and other companies that either collude information asymmetry or otherwise buy up the market and wait to artificially drive prices higher..

I'm talking about restrictions of companies buying residential dwellings (not corporate dwellings, but im sure that could be gamed).

I'm talking about rent control. I'm aware that's a top-down command approach. Maybe use it as a cap per sqft?

I'm talking about relaxing or eliminating zoning restrictions. Much of them were put in place as a racist plan during the 40's-60's.

I'm talking about having banks *require* including on a mortgage application if you've paid rent for X years at Y rate, that you qualify for a mortgage of the similar terms.

I'm talking about having the mortgage rate be different (LOW) for your primary residence.

I'm talking about converting apartment complexes into a benefit corps run by the people who live there. Again, having people live in dwellings where they reasonably know that they are safe is inherently a great thing, and builds a real community. Problems that arise can be handled by the people who live there, like if a recession hits and 1/10 lose their jobs. (Yes, this is more radical.)

Every one of these changes would enable more people to have their own place to live, and live better how they want to live. Does it solve every problem? Of course not. It's steps to do this. And what I see here in my area, we're going the very wrong way. More and more are going homeless or vanlife every week. And that piece of stability disappears. And it's hard to reestablish once you're in that direction.

It's not just an individual issue - at a certain number, it turns into a societal issue that needs a society-wide solution.

[andsoitis]

C’mon. There’s oodles of space in the US… we can probably have way more people than 330m and them still live comfortably (in terms of living space).

[prottog]

> There’s oodles of space in the US

This is true now and we don't need a government guarantee of housing to make that happen. What I don't like is people who want to live in a specific place they would like to live, and wanting subsidies from others so that they can live there at below-market prices.

[lotsofpulp]

Right, so I am interested in determining how space is allocated under a system with a “right to housing”.

Do you apply to the federal government and get sent to where it is cheapest for the feds? Do you get preference for a certain region if your ancestors and relatives are more numerous there?

[wombatpm]

Sure if they don't mind living in Iowa or a Dakota

[coding123]

That is not doable, while there may be house space, the roads would turn to dust every 4 days. Or just be parking lots at that point.

[lotsofpulp]

People would have to use alternative modes of transport, and eschew individual cars, like people in Hong Kong. I do not understand “roads turning to dust” though.

[prottog]

> Instead we have "right to badmouth government"

You should look at the track record of providing food, water, and shelter in places where you don't have a right to badmouth the government and instead had "rights" to things like food and shelter.

[matchbok]

So the government has the right to take your money to spend it building housing for someone else? "Housing is a human right" is a lazy, armchair argument that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the housing market.

[noasaservice]

Whereas I'm arguing that housing shouldn't even exist as a "market" to begin with, at least in terms of residential housing. Or at least, prevent companies from owning residential housing, except under stringent terms. There's plenty other places capitalism can take hold.

I fail to understand why heavy controls that enable real humans (not made-up on paper corporate humans) to get a residence of their own, is so damned radical.

I see what the environment looks like, with RealPage ( https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r... ) and Zillow and Redfin, and whomever else is buying residences left and right. And I want none of it. Burn these parasites to the ground. And damn the "profit".