[sorcerer-mar]

No I'm advocating for the prevention of feudalism where a permanent landed gentry can extract wealth in perpetuity through no contribution whatsoever than having a deed.

I agree that property square feet is a bad metric. The right way to do this is actually to tax based on the unimproved value of the land, which would in fact create many many more multifamily dwellings by virtue of increasing the carrying cost of land as the market demand for density increases.

[archagon]

In my opinion, a person should not be forced to move just because of economic circumstances outside their control. Unless you're a spry 20-something with no real connections, moving will be incredibly disruptive and potentially traumatic.

One person's "landed gentry" is another's "housing stability."

[sorcerer-mar]

In my opinion, options should be balanced against each other and then we should pick the least-bad or most-good ones.

The "allow zero carrying costs indefinitely on any land" option entails runaway wealth inequality, skyrocketing housing costs, major impediments to family and household formation, and destruction of the payoff period for any capital expenditures made in a geography as younger generations have to create new cities from scratch over and over again, creating enormous financially unsustainable infrastructure sprawl (see: Houston) as redevelopment is too difficult against the vested interests of the landed gentry (see: NYC and SF). This of course causes decay, bankrupts cities and states, and ends up reducing the quality of life for everyone, including the landed gentry.

The "incur carrying costs" option entails old people reverse mortgaging their property until they die, or selling and moving into something more suitable for their needs.