Michael, a fascinating topic and personal interest. Bounced into this from your Medieval expansion piece.
Do we have a trustworthy model of the City? Not referring to ideology or utopian angst.
Do we even have a valid theory of the City?
Do we have an accurate diagnosis of the problems today?
Why do our attempts at correcting these problems seemingly produce random results?
The City is perhaps the greatest piece of human engineering other than macro-economics. Our understanding today seems about on par with alchemy. We don't seem to be that interested in discovering a scientific method and as so muddle along.
From Poverty to Progress in this next century requires a more deliberate approach.
No, I do not have a formal theory or model of cities. And you are correct, if you mean to imply that no one else does either. And, yes, that is a big problem. I do not think that we should therefore not experiment with possible solutions to the housing affordability problem.
The increased cost of housing relative to income is clearly driven by expensive land. Using basic economic theory supply is not meeting demand. This is turn is most likely caused by government regulations that slow down or make completely illegal new housing construction in areas where land is cheap. Fortunately, the federal government owns huge tracts of cheap land.
This article is best categorized as an idea that has not really been tested. That is why I suggest starting with small-scale experiments outside Las Vegas, and then if successfully, slowly scaling up based on results. If successful, it can give many young families affordable housing that would be much more expensive to achieve via other methods.
If you were interested in housing, you might be interested in the rest of this series, starting with this post:
Now, in regard to this posting, I agree some form of new homesteading idea has merit, at least enough to justify deeper exploration of the legal and practical issues.
It is surprising how much the Civil War Congress accomplished in 1861 to 64, details of history that are not emphasized enough since the actual war history always takes precedence. I am pretty ignorant of those details, for sure.
I have no problems with your list of 7 criteria for the homesteaders getting this land, except to not be stupid about ensuring the candidates are good "mortgage" risks -- no unqualified subprime situations. But as a fan of the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, I would push for plot sizes of at least 10,000 sq-ft. [100ft x 100ft is not much]. 1200 to 1500 sq ft for a modest well designed house + 600 sq ft for garage/ workshop (or larger?). Plus many (even modest) small businesses need more land than that.
"but the area does have large underground aquifers." If that is true, great, but there should be no doubt about its carrying capacity, etc. etc.
Are you envisioning "cities" perhaps 30 to 40 miles apart, with smaller commercial collectives and "villages" between them? Do we need to give some consideration to Jane Jacobs ideas about organic cities that grow as much as they are "designed"? Striking a balance between order and freedom?
An idea that is certainly worth discussing and debating.
I have fallen behind in reading your posts, as you have increased the # of posts per week substantially.
But I saw this title and dived in, for reasons apparent below.
I know this post is oriented to land and housing mobility promotion, etc. and the following is only indirectly oriented to that, being some sort of financial asset development scheme to provide initial start up capital to (basically) infants?? But it included "homesteading" as part of its core idea. I may not fully understand this idea, or agree with it to the extent that I do. But perhaps you will find it interesting as part of your program to increase mobility, etc.
What Capital Homesteading Would Mean to the Average American
Projected Tax-Sheltered Wealth Accumulations and Pre-Tax Income Under Capital Homesteading
Copyright 2013 Center for Economic and Social Justice
[Now it gets embarrassing for me -- or for them.]
It looks like this idea was published initially in 2013 by the CESJ, but the above links now appear to be dead?? I found this info in 2016 and captured the above web pages in 2 Word files, plus two related pdf flyers or sheets, but I don't have links for the 2 pdf items.
Thus, at this juncture (if you were not already aware of this) you might want to do a search on "capital homesteading" and see what pops for you. Failing that, perhaps I can end up emailing my files to you somehow? Or you may not want to bother?
Apologies to the extent this comment is OT, but it seems much of Progress program has a lot of interconnections to other ideas.
I am continually amazed that housing costs are not more of a political issue. People just seem to think that housing prices are just some inevitability, and that it has nothing to do with public policy.
And by the way, I am also not sure whether it will work either. That is why I advocate for starting small. Then if it works, scale it up.
Michael, a fascinating topic and personal interest. Bounced into this from your Medieval expansion piece.
Do we have a trustworthy model of the City? Not referring to ideology or utopian angst.
Do we even have a valid theory of the City?
Do we have an accurate diagnosis of the problems today?
Why do our attempts at correcting these problems seemingly produce random results?
The City is perhaps the greatest piece of human engineering other than macro-economics. Our understanding today seems about on par with alchemy. We don't seem to be that interested in discovering a scientific method and as so muddle along.
From Poverty to Progress in this next century requires a more deliberate approach.
Thanks for the comment.
No, I do not have a formal theory or model of cities. And you are correct, if you mean to imply that no one else does either. And, yes, that is a big problem. I do not think that we should therefore not experiment with possible solutions to the housing affordability problem.
The increased cost of housing relative to income is clearly driven by expensive land. Using basic economic theory supply is not meeting demand. This is turn is most likely caused by government regulations that slow down or make completely illegal new housing construction in areas where land is cheap. Fortunately, the federal government owns huge tracts of cheap land.
This article is best categorized as an idea that has not really been tested. That is why I suggest starting with small-scale experiments outside Las Vegas, and then if successfully, slowly scaling up based on results. If successful, it can give many young families affordable housing that would be much more expensive to achieve via other methods.
If you were interested in housing, you might be interested in the rest of this series, starting with this post:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-housing-became-unaffordable
Now, in regard to this posting, I agree some form of new homesteading idea has merit, at least enough to justify deeper exploration of the legal and practical issues.
It is surprising how much the Civil War Congress accomplished in 1861 to 64, details of history that are not emphasized enough since the actual war history always takes precedence. I am pretty ignorant of those details, for sure.
I have no problems with your list of 7 criteria for the homesteaders getting this land, except to not be stupid about ensuring the candidates are good "mortgage" risks -- no unqualified subprime situations. But as a fan of the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, I would push for plot sizes of at least 10,000 sq-ft. [100ft x 100ft is not much]. 1200 to 1500 sq ft for a modest well designed house + 600 sq ft for garage/ workshop (or larger?). Plus many (even modest) small businesses need more land than that.
"but the area does have large underground aquifers." If that is true, great, but there should be no doubt about its carrying capacity, etc. etc.
Are you envisioning "cities" perhaps 30 to 40 miles apart, with smaller commercial collectives and "villages" between them? Do we need to give some consideration to Jane Jacobs ideas about organic cities that grow as much as they are "designed"? Striking a balance between order and freedom?
An idea that is certainly worth discussing and debating.
I have fallen behind in reading your posts, as you have increased the # of posts per week substantially.
But I saw this title and dived in, for reasons apparent below.
I know this post is oriented to land and housing mobility promotion, etc. and the following is only indirectly oriented to that, being some sort of financial asset development scheme to provide initial start up capital to (basically) infants?? But it included "homesteading" as part of its core idea. I may not fully understand this idea, or agree with it to the extent that I do. But perhaps you will find it interesting as part of your program to increase mobility, etc.
Capital Homestead Act Summary
http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/capital-homestead-act-summary/
What Capital Homesteading Would Mean to the Average American
Projected Tax-Sheltered Wealth Accumulations and Pre-Tax Income Under Capital Homesteading
Copyright 2013 Center for Economic and Social Justice
[Now it gets embarrassing for me -- or for them.]
It looks like this idea was published initially in 2013 by the CESJ, but the above links now appear to be dead?? I found this info in 2016 and captured the above web pages in 2 Word files, plus two related pdf flyers or sheets, but I don't have links for the 2 pdf items.
Thus, at this juncture (if you were not already aware of this) you might want to do a search on "capital homesteading" and see what pops for you. Failing that, perhaps I can end up emailing my files to you somehow? Or you may not want to bother?
Apologies to the extent this comment is OT, but it seems much of Progress program has a lot of interconnections to other ideas.
Please confine your comments to the topic of the post.
This is a good enough idea that I'm surprised it isn't discussed constantly. Not sure exactly how well it would work, but curious.
Thanks for the comment.
I am continually amazed that housing costs are not more of a political issue. People just seem to think that housing prices are just some inevitability, and that it has nothing to do with public policy.
And by the way, I am also not sure whether it will work either. That is why I advocate for starting small. Then if it works, scale it up.