Jen Rubin is joined by Professor Michael Albertus to discuss his new book Land Power: Who Has It, Who Doesn't, and How That Determines the Fate of Societies. Together, they discuss how land ownership, and the power that comes with is, has evolved over time.
For some, the American dream is to own a home. A free standing dwelling with a front and rear yard - a place of relative quiet to garden and entertain. Relaxing zoning, which is meant to protect the character of a neighborhood and protect the value of an investment, only serves real estate developers who want to build as many apartments as possible. Affordable housing crisis wasn’t created by single family zoned neighborhoods.There’s a list of reasons why there is an affordable housing crisis. Don’t blame hard working and tax paying single family homeowners. Thoughtful zoning serves a purpose.
I live in a neighborhood where modest single family homes of 400K (still expensive for many) are being replaced by homes that cost more than one million dollars. And two flats are being converted to luxury single family homes. Families are being pushed out. The local public school is seeing its student population fall, which influences funding and services.
My point is that the dream of the single family home has become distorted by wealth, and zoning enables this. The zoning is not thoughtful, but rather a carryover from the past, and it doesn’t seem as if anyone wants to question the zoning, probably because of views that people have the right to own a single family home. But more and more people can’t afford that right. So what does the dream/right mean anyway?
Another point—I’m glad we have our own house, but I know it’s not an efficient use of land or resources. Our modest house is in some ways no different than the over-sized expensive new single family homes being built nearby. It is an inefficient use of land considering only two people live in it. This land could support housing for 2 to 3 families.
Thank you for this interesting interview. I look forward to reading the book.
Given the importance of land/home ownership for a democracy, it seems it would be helpful to limit who can own a home and to limit how many homes an individual can own.
In this comment, "citizen" is referring to a person who lives and/or works in a city.
From a human perspective, the limits on who can own a home should have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion or gender. Human beings should be allowed to own homes. Not an llc, corporation, or hedge fund. Residents and workers of the city should be allowed to own homes. Not people who live in other counties, states and countries. People with capital to invest in places they do not live are taking the right to own away from the citizens and workers. Residential investors and folks with vacation homes push out citizens from home ownership.
I wonder if Americans could agree on a maximum number of homes an individual should own. One? Two? Five? Ten? Could we agree 5 is taking more than your share of the American pie? Could we agree 3?
It's considered savy to own multiple homes, but
will Americans see the damage it causes other citizens and democracy?
Those of us that live in one house in one city are expected to pack in tighter so that the investors can get second and third shares of the pie.
We need more homes built and we also need more citizens owning homes. Do you know who is doing work to increase the number of citizens owning homes by limiting investors and out of towners?
In a mid-size city, my understanding is that nimbyism has more to do with the rising cost of homes/rent and the reduction in the number of citizens owning homes than what is being built across the street. Which is most likely a tall high end apartment building that will replace naturally occuring affordable housing. Our citizens our being pushed out of their cities.
The suggestions to "incentivize easing zoning restrictions and to try and make it easier to build and easier to build within city centers, easier to build in places that are accessible and close to public transportation and that are in high demand" make sense. But I think a huge problem is the concentration of populations spaces that is just too small to fit all of them in. For example, New York City can build vertically only so much. It would be great if more jobs were available in less populated areas so housing can be built.
The other thing these days is the connection between "cloud capital" and wealth. When transactions take place on places like Amazon (which I will no longer use), everyone resides there at the mercy of the technofeudal lord.
For some, the American dream is to own a home. A free standing dwelling with a front and rear yard - a place of relative quiet to garden and entertain. Relaxing zoning, which is meant to protect the character of a neighborhood and protect the value of an investment, only serves real estate developers who want to build as many apartments as possible. Affordable housing crisis wasn’t created by single family zoned neighborhoods.There’s a list of reasons why there is an affordable housing crisis. Don’t blame hard working and tax paying single family homeowners. Thoughtful zoning serves a purpose.
I live in a neighborhood where modest single family homes of 400K (still expensive for many) are being replaced by homes that cost more than one million dollars. And two flats are being converted to luxury single family homes. Families are being pushed out. The local public school is seeing its student population fall, which influences funding and services.
My point is that the dream of the single family home has become distorted by wealth, and zoning enables this. The zoning is not thoughtful, but rather a carryover from the past, and it doesn’t seem as if anyone wants to question the zoning, probably because of views that people have the right to own a single family home. But more and more people can’t afford that right. So what does the dream/right mean anyway?
Another point—I’m glad we have our own house, but I know it’s not an efficient use of land or resources. Our modest house is in some ways no different than the over-sized expensive new single family homes being built nearby. It is an inefficient use of land considering only two people live in it. This land could support housing for 2 to 3 families.
Thank you for this interesting interview. I look forward to reading the book.
Given the importance of land/home ownership for a democracy, it seems it would be helpful to limit who can own a home and to limit how many homes an individual can own.
In this comment, "citizen" is referring to a person who lives and/or works in a city.
From a human perspective, the limits on who can own a home should have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion or gender. Human beings should be allowed to own homes. Not an llc, corporation, or hedge fund. Residents and workers of the city should be allowed to own homes. Not people who live in other counties, states and countries. People with capital to invest in places they do not live are taking the right to own away from the citizens and workers. Residential investors and folks with vacation homes push out citizens from home ownership.
I wonder if Americans could agree on a maximum number of homes an individual should own. One? Two? Five? Ten? Could we agree 5 is taking more than your share of the American pie? Could we agree 3?
It's considered savy to own multiple homes, but
will Americans see the damage it causes other citizens and democracy?
Those of us that live in one house in one city are expected to pack in tighter so that the investors can get second and third shares of the pie.
We need more homes built and we also need more citizens owning homes. Do you know who is doing work to increase the number of citizens owning homes by limiting investors and out of towners?
In a mid-size city, my understanding is that nimbyism has more to do with the rising cost of homes/rent and the reduction in the number of citizens owning homes than what is being built across the street. Which is most likely a tall high end apartment building that will replace naturally occuring affordable housing. Our citizens our being pushed out of their cities.
Interesting ideas. Thank you.
Y'know what else would help alleviate our housing crisis? Not deporting construction workers or putting tariffs on Canadian lumber and steel.
The suggestions to "incentivize easing zoning restrictions and to try and make it easier to build and easier to build within city centers, easier to build in places that are accessible and close to public transportation and that are in high demand" make sense. But I think a huge problem is the concentration of populations spaces that is just too small to fit all of them in. For example, New York City can build vertically only so much. It would be great if more jobs were available in less populated areas so housing can be built.
The other thing these days is the connection between "cloud capital" and wealth. When transactions take place on places like Amazon (which I will no longer use), everyone resides there at the mercy of the technofeudal lord.