• bblkargonaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    A partial solution is to remove nimby laws that prevent accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and medium and high density housing. Then you use the tax laws to heavily punish corporate ownership of low and medium density housing, and make it progressively more expensive for mom and pop landlords after a reasonable number of properties.

    Hopefully this would lower the cost for single family housing, while increasing supply and variety of rentals. But somehow you’d have to prevent end stage capitalist collusion from fixing prices so competition could actually work to drive down prices.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Do you like HOA’s because this is how you get more HOA’s – if the laws won’t protect the desired community development, people will work together to create it and the result is something less efficient and less open.

      This is why libertarianism is nonsense. People will quickly recreate all the old rules when they relearn the lessons that lead to the creation of those old rules.

      • Cyteseer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        How would the original comment encourage either more HOA’s or be considered libertarian? Weren’t they asking for more regulations and the addition of tax repercussions to disincentivize rental properties?

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          They want to remove nimby laws. I don’t know how to read that as more regulations.