Decommodifying Housing and Ensuring Economic Stability Outside Homeownership

Housing is more than just a roof over one’s head, it is a foundation for stability, health, and community. In America, housing has also become a primary vehicle for wealth accumulation. For decades, policies have encouraged homeownership as the path to prosperity, entangling the basic human need for shelter with speculative investment. This essay aims to explore how we can decouple housing from wealth-building and still ensure economic stability for families. In other words, how can people lead secure, prosperous lives even if their homes are not treated as financial assets? We investigate the economic and social implications of decommodifying housing and propose policy solutions to maintain prosperity outside of rising home values. The discussion spans the false comfort of perceived housing wealth versus actual financial well-being, strategies to offset declining home values with lower costs of living, and innovative models like publicly backed equity-sharing programs to replace speculative home appreciation with stable returns. We examine the role of a public investment fund to stabilize homeowner wealth without relying on market booms, and how land value taxation could curb speculation while funding public housing. Crucially, the thesis addresses political feasibility: how to enact decommodification reforms in the face of opposition from current homeowners, by offering them security and neutralizing vested interests. We delve into the expansion of social housing and mixed-income developments to avoid stigma, and outline anti-gentrification measures to alleviate fears of displacement. Finally, we consider reforms to the mortgage finance system to reduce over-reliance on homeownership for financial security, and why supply-side interventions and public investment often outperform traditional inclusionary zoning mandates in delivering affordability. Throughout, our analysis balances economics with social justice considerations, aiming to inform policymakers and engage the general public in an accessible yet rigorous discussion. The goal is to illuminate a future where housing is a stable, affordable human right and prosperity does not depend on riding an ever-riskier property ladder.

Housing as Shelter vs. Housing as Wealth: A Conflict of Purposes

A house is both a home and, in current systems, an asset. This dual role creates a tension between the social function of housing, which is to provide shelter, with the financial function it holds, which is to store and generate wealth. Historically, especially since the mid-20th century, many governments have promoted homeownership as the primary means of wealth-building. In the United States, postwar policies made homeownership a cornerstone of prosperity, with federal support for mortgages, tax incentives, and infrastructure that boosted suburban housing markets. These efforts succeeded in raising homeownership rates – reaching around 62%–70% in the late 20th century in the U.S. – and cemented housing as the main asset for middle-class families. Across OECD countries, housing remains the chief asset of the middle class; wealthier households hold diverse portfolios, but for most families, home equity is the largest and often only form of wealth.

It is important to recognize the extent to which homeownership distorts perceptions of wealth. According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, approximately 23.7 million U.S. households qualify as millionaires when the value of their primary residence is included (Aladangady et al., 2023). However, when primary residence equity is excluded, that number drops significantly to 13.61 million households. This means that roughly 10 million American households hold millionaire status only because of their home equity—underscoring the degree to which housing wealth inflates net worth figures (Lynkova, 2024). In a housing market increasingly driven by speculation and scarcity, these figures highlight a systemic dependence on rising property values to manufacture middle-class wealth.

This commodification of housing, treating it as a commodity for profit and investment, has had far-reaching implications. On one hand, rising home prices have enriched many homeowners, creating an illusion of wealth and financial security as property values climb. Countries with higher homeownership rates often show lower wealth inequality in a static snapshot, because a broad base of people hold at least some wealth in their homes. Housing wealth, being widely held, flattens the wealth distribution at a given moment. This fact has underpinned policies that encourage home buying as a way to build a more egalitarian middle class. 

On the other hand, the strategy of tying wealth to homeownership has significant downsides and policy trade-offs. Rising prices in the housing market that benefit owners mean affordability crises for renters and first-time buyers. As prices soar, even middle-income households in many cities struggle to purchase a home, undermining the very goal of broad wealth building. Moreover, as economists have noted, promoting homeownership can conflict with other objectives like inclusive growth. Heavy subsidies for ownership in the form of tax deductions for mortgage interest or the down payment-assistance programs offered by housing agencies like MSHDA can inflate demand and push prices higher, perversely worsening affordability. Essentially, using housing as the main wealth engine creates a dilemma: policies that succeed in raising home values grow homeowner wealth while simultaneously raising the barrier to entry for others and distorting the economy.

There are also social and racial equity implications. The entanglement of housing and wealth has exacerbated inequality. The decades of discriminatory housing and lending practices in America mean that the gains of homeownership are uneven. As a result, housing equity, or lack thereof, is a key driver of the persistent racial wealth gap. Unequal access to homeownership has been identified as the major factor behind the ten-fold wealth difference between the median white and black household (Baiocchi & Carlson, 2021).

Decommodifying housing means reversing these trends and prioritizing housing’s role as shelter and community infrastructure over its role in private wealth accumulation. The implications of this shift would be profound. Economically, decoupling housing from wealth-building could stabilize housing costs and make homes more affordable, but it would also change how families save and invest. Socially, it could reduce inequality and housing insecurity, but it challenges deeply ingrained notions of the “American Dream” and middle-class status tied to owning an appreciating home.

The Mirage of Housing Wealth: Perceived Wealth vs. Actual Prosperity

For many homeowners, the wealth tied up in their house is central to their financial identity. Rising home prices create a sense of success and security – a feeling of increased financial stability. However, perceived wealth from housing often diverges from actual financial prosperity that improves one’s day-to-day life. In one survey, 19.5% of U.S. homeowners said they felt “house rich, cash poor” most or all of the time, and nearly three-quarters felt that way at least occasionally. Even among Millennials who were able to buy homes, 60% reported that housing costs made it difficult to achieve other financial goals, with many devoting over half their income to mortgage payments. This points to a precarious situation: a family might have significant equity in a home, but if that wealth is illiquid and their income is consumed by mortgage, taxes, and upkeep, their day-to-day prosperity is constrained.

This disconnect occurs because housing wealth is not the same as disposable income or emergency savings. It’s typically locked up until a home is sold or refinanced. Rising home equity might make owners feel better off, but it doesn’t pay for groceries or medical bills unless you leverage it, which entails debt. A home’s market price can surge, but the use value to the owner – shelter – remains the same. Reliance on housing as an investment can leave families over-exposed to market downturns and with insufficient liquid savings. In 2019, 40% of American households could not cover an unexpected $400 expense from savings, reflecting a broader issue: wealth tied in property is not readily available for crises. Additionally, housing returns vary widely by location and timing; some homeowners enjoy windfalls, while others in stagnant markets see little gain. There is risk: if someone buys at a market peak or in a region that later loses jobs, their supposed wealth can evaporate or even turn into debt in the form of negative equity.

Another aspect of perceived prosperity is how rising home values can mask broader economic strains. In booming markets, owners may celebrate high valuations, yet those same markets often have skyrocketing costs of living and inequality. A homeowner in San Francisco might feel wealthy due to a seven-figure home value, but if they cannot afford to move anywhere else, their wealth is effectively trapped. High property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and the inability to downgrade without leaving one’s community can all make a homeowner “equity-rich but income-poor.” Increases in paper wealth often come with increases in expenses. Property taxes tend to rise as home values rise, and insurance premiums may follow suit. Retirees or others on fixed incomes can thus be asset-rich on paper but face monthly budget squeezes. This is why tax relief programs or deferrals are often demanded by “asset-rich, income-poor” constituents, and why simply looking at appreciating property values can mislead policymakers about a population’s welfare.

The challenge of decoupling housing from wealth-building starts with addressing this cultural and psychological attachment to housing wealth. Many people equate their financial success with their home’s appreciation, even if their material standard of living hasn’t improved proportionally. This perception can drive political resistance to any policy that might slow home price growth – even if, paradoxically, policies like building more affordable housing or taxing extreme appreciation might improve overall prosperity. It is crucial to distinguish real prosperity – having security in health, education, and a comfortable standard of living – from the sometimes illusory comfort of a high home valuation. If essential needs like healthcare, education, and retirement are assured by other means, the need for one’s home equity to serve as a multi-purpose safety net diminishes. But what would happen if housing were not an engine of wealth: what if home values grew slowly or even declined? Could we compensate by improving other facets of economic life?

Offsetting Declining Home Values with Lower Costs of Living

One fear about decommodifying housing is that home prices might stagnate or even drop, undermining household wealth and economic growth. Many existing homeowners worry that policies to make housing more affordable such as expanding supply or regulating prices could dent their primary asset. Policymakers, too, often balk at anything that might trigger a broad decline in home values, fearing negative wealth effects or pushback from constituents. However, declining or stabilizing home prices can be beneficial if accompanied by cost-of-living reductions in other essential areas. In a well-balanced system, slower housing appreciation would be offset by greater affordability not only in housing but across healthcare, education, transportation, and other basics. The net result could be that families are financially better off and experiencing greater actual prosperity, even if their homes are not appreciating at previous rates.

Consider what housing wealth is often used for. As housing advocates note, people don’t accumulate home equity just for the sake of having it; they intend to use it directly or by bequeathing it to meet real needs. In essence, housing wealth has become a proxy for insufficient welfare systems in the public domain. If home equity is one of the only ways a middle-class family can pay for an unexpected surgery or some other emergency expense, of course homeowners will be anxious about preserving and increasing that equity. Public policy can step in to reduce these pressures. Expanded public services, such as subsidized childcare, targeted direct cash payments, or even widely-available public transit all contribute to financial security. With such supports, the utility of an extra, say, $50,000 in home equity shrinks dramatically because that wealth is no longer needed to buy basic “good life” outcomes.

Practically, this means a policy package for decommodifying housing cannot focus on housing alone. It should be paired with a robust social safety net and cost-of-living reductions in other domains. This approach directly tackles the “perceived wealth vs. prosperity” issue: it ensures that even if people feel less wealthy in housing terms, they feel more secure and prosperous in real terms. For instance, if property taxes are reformed to be more progressive, homeowners with modest incomes and high home values can get relief so they aren’t forced out by tax bills. If utilities and transportation are made more efficient and cheaper – say through public investment in energy or transit – the monthly savings can outweigh modest losses in housing wealth. When rents or mortgages consume a smaller share of income, families can spend or save elsewhere, boosting their quality of life. It’s important to remember, these savings are real cash flow improvements, not locked-up wealth. For many working- and middle-class households, lower monthly expenses and greater economic security are more tangible and valuable than volatile home equity gains.

By addressing the underlying needs that housing wealth currently serves, we can tackle homeowner opposition to new housing development. If we assure people that although their homes may become less valuable as assets, their total costs of living will be lowered significantly, then the idea of housing not appreciating becomes far less frightening. In fact, lower home values can even imply lower entry costs for the next generation, meaning one’s children won’t need as large a mortgage or as high a down payment to become homeowners themselves. If done thoughtfully, housing decommodification redistributes where prosperity comes from: less from passive asset gains, more from active public goods, lower living expenses, and the “social wage.” 

Publicly Backed Equity-Sharing: Replacing Speculative Gains with Stable Returns

Policymakers should approach housing reform as part of a holistic package one that trades speculative gains for stable, widely shared benefits. The question is what mechanisms can replace the role of speculative appreciation. One promising avenue to maintain individual wealth-building without speculative home prices is to create a public investment fund or public wealth fund for housing. This would be a large-scale public fund that invests in housing and other assets, generating returns that can be used to support stable housing outcomes. For example, consider a Public Housing Equity Fund where the government accumulates a portfolio of real estate and then allows citizens to own a share of this fund, which pays a regular dividend. Instead of banking on one’s own house value skyrocketing, a homeowner or renter could own a stake in this housing fund. The fund’s returns would come from modest appreciation spread across many properties, rental income from these properties, and other investments, and would provide a steady yield to stakeholders. This would be a collectively owned investment fund that gives everyone a share of the municipal wealth growth (Baiocchi & Carlson, 2021).

In practice, this would work by the government issuing “housing bonds” or by using tax revenue to seed a fund that buys housing assets, lends for housing development, or develops its own portfolio of social housing. Over time, as those assets appreciate slowly or generate rental income, the returns flow into the fund. Homeowners who forego large appreciation by opting into an equity-sharing scheme or by owning in a regulated market could receive units of this fund, giving them a claim on the collective growth. In this model, gains from selling a modestly appreciating home would be achieved through a socialized mechanism rather than local scarcity. Meanwhile, the house itself remained affordable, and the modest gain was not capitalized into the house price for the next buyer; it came from broader economic growth. This kind of arrangement requires careful calibration, but it outlines a path to uncouple personal wealth growth from individual house price growth. From a policymaker’s perspective, publicly backed equity-sharing programs have multiple advantages. Ultimately, these programs aim to replace speculative gain with a steadier, fairer wealth accumulation process. Coupled with the public housing fund concept, they offer a vision where individuals still invest in housing, but in a way that aligns with social goals of affordability and stability.

The Role of a Public Investment Fund in Stabilizing Wealth

To delve deeper into the idea of a public investment fund, consider how such an entity could function and contribute to decommodifying housing. The core purpose of this fund would be to stabilize homeownership wealth without relying on speculative market gains. In a commodified system, owners expect to gain wealth from rising property values which often means hoping for scarcity or gentrification, essentially zero-sum gains. In a decommodified system, the aim is for owners to maintain wealth parity or modest growth in real terms, even if housing prices are stable, so that owning a home remains financially worthwhile even without the jackpot returns. A public investment fund could support this in several ways:

• Dividend Function: The fund could pay out dividends derived from broader economic growth. It might invest in social housing developments and use rental revenues or lease payments to pay stipends to those participating in equity-sharing ownership. Essentially, homeowners trade uncapped upside for a steady, capped return via the fund. If designed well, these returns could be inflation-indexed and more predictable than the rollercoaster of real estate booms and busts.
• Public Investment and Ownership: The fund could directly invest in social housing developments, becoming a co-owner of housing stock that yields social as well as financial returns. Over time, as social housing expands, the fund’s assets grow. Unlike a typical sovereign wealth fund that might invest in stocks or commodities globally, a public investment fund might invest domestically in local housing infrastructure. This can be especially powerful in expensive urban areas: instead of all housing being privately owned and residents paying rent that flows to private landlords or REITs, a portion of housing would be owned by the public fund, and rents could cycle back into community dividends or further investment into public investments like additional housing, public goods, infrastructure improvements, or services delivery.
• Equity Sharing at Scale: The fund can pool and manage all the equity stakes the public sector accumulates through the various shared equity programs. For instance, every time a city or state helps a family buy a home through a shared appreciation loan, that stake could be assigned to the sovereign fund. With thousands of such stakes, the fund would have a diversified “portfolio” of housing equity slices. Some will yield returns, some might not. But collectively, it could provide an averaging of housing outcomes, effectively smoothing disparities. This resembles how a pension fund works – not every investment yields, but the combined returns meet a target.
• Sovereign Credit and Scale: Being a large state-level or municipal-level entity, the fund could borrow at sovereign interest rates and use that money to fund public investment. For example, issuing long-term bonds at low interest to finance the construction of transit-oriented development, or to finance municipally owned assets with recurring revenue like public renewable energy projects. The returns from even below-market rents could often cover the low interest, and the social benefit is essentially financed by cheap public credit.

By investing public funds into housing and capturing returns, a public investment fund ensures that if there is growth in real estate values, society benefits broadly, and if there isn’t, individuals are not left adrift.

It’s important to acknowledge that these ideas, while grounded in economic rationale, are novel and would mark a significant shift from current practice. Policymakers would need to carefully design governance to avoid misuse of the fund, ensure it benefits those it’s meant to, and integrate it with existing housing finance systems. However, the payoff could be a stable housing system where housing costs are kept in check. A public investment fund would act as a collective mechanism to protect and grow wealth in a post-commodification era. It paints a picture of a reformed housing economy: one where wealth is built through cooperation and public investment, not through zero-sum speculation.

Navigating Political Feasibility: Neutralizing Homeowner Opposition

Any proposal to decommodify housing and reshape wealth-building will face political hurdles, especially from current homeowners who may see it as a threat to their interests. Homeowners are often a majority voting bloc and have historically been very protective of policies that keep home values high. To achieve housing decommodification, it is crucial to address the underlying concerns of homeowners and split their interests from those of pure speculators. 

Not all homeowners are the same. Many are not wealthy elites, but ordinary middle-class folks whose financial stability is actually quite fragile. These homeowners might be more open to change if they see that it benefits them or at least does not harm them. Meanwhile, wealthier home owners and big investors have more capacity to absorb changes but also more inclination to resist them to protect their wealth advantages. Political strategy should therefore focus on reassuring and winning over the former group, creating a coalition that can outvote and outmaneuver the latter.

Another tactic is to ensure that any transitions are gradual and compensate potential “losers.” For instance, if a land value tax is introduced, it could start small and ramp up, with credits or deferments for low-income homeowners so they are not hurt. If zoning is changed to allow more multi-family housing in single family neighborhoods, potentially lowering exclusivity and prices, pair it with neighborhood investments or guarantees that property tax rates will drop proportionally. Essentially, blunt the immediate financial hit or perception thereof. Policymakers can frame it as trading a volatile asset for a more secure future. 

Finally, consider framing and coalitions. Politically, housing decommodification can be tied to broader movements for economic fairness. Unions, senior citizens’ organizations, healthcare reformers, environmental groups who see dense affordable housing as key to sustainability – all can be allies. If the narrative is that we are moving towards a society where basic needs are guaranteed and speculation on those needs is curtailed, housing fits into that as one pillar along with healthcare and education. Homeowners who might be skeptical about housing policy alone might be more supportive if it’s part of a New Deal-like vision that aims to boost their quality of life. This kind of mutual accountability in a progressive coalition ensures no group is left to “sell out” others. Neutralizing homeowner opposition hinges on reassurance, compensation, inclusion, and coalition-building. By making reforms advantageous for most homeowners, especially the middle class, and isolating the purely speculative motives, we gain political momentum for a social reordering. We should demonstrate that a decommodified housing system doesn’t mean taking away what people have earned, but rather securing what they truly need.

Funding the Transition: Land Value Taxation to Curb Speculation and Fund Housing

Transformative housing policy will require funding, and the most viable source is the very asset whose unearned gains we seek to curtail: land value. Land value taxation (LVT) proposes taxing the unimproved value of land (location value) rather than the buildings on it. It is considered an efficient and fair tax by many economists because it targets wealth that landowners accrue due to community development and public investment, not due to their own efforts. A land value tax would serve a dual role: it disincentivizes land speculation while generating public revenue that can be reinvested into housing affordability programs, social housing construction, or the public housing fund described earlier.

Unlike a traditional property tax levied on the combined land + building value, an LVT is assessed only on the land’s base value, the location value that arises from factors like proximity to jobs, schools, transportation, and amenities. This value is largely created by the built environment. A landowner doesn’t create a great school or a new subway line, but those certainly raise a parcel of land’s value. Taxing land value encourages landowners to put land to productive use. Leaving a parcel vacant or underused doesn’t lower the tax; they’ll pay the same tax whether the lot is used as a parking lot or as multi-family housing (What is land value tax and could it fix the Housing Crisis, 2022). Meanwhile, improvements are not taxed under a pure LVT, so it removes the disincentive to build that property taxes sometimes create. If you build affordable apartments, your land tax would not go up due to the building’s value; only an increase in land value would be taxed. This spurs development where needed and penalizes speculation. For example, someone who was holding onto a vacant urban plot in hopes its value would rise now faces an annual tax that makes such hoarding more costly (What is land value tax and could it fix the Housing Crisis, 2022). By making it financially unattractive to keep sites vacant or under-built, LVT pushes landowners to either develop or sell to someone who will. This can increase housing supply in land-constrained areas. The city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania partially implemented a land-tax system, initially taxing land at twice the rate of improvements, later up to six times – and saw a revival with previously empty properties being developed (What is land value tax and could it fix the Housing Crisis, 2022). Internationally, Singapore and Taiwan have used land policies to curb speculation and enable affordable housing. Singapore has used LVT-capture to reinvest in public housing, contributing to nearly 80% of its residents being in government-built homes. Taiwan has used LVT and public land banking to prevent runaway land prices during its development.

From a funding perspective, land value taxation can raise substantial revenue, especially in high-value markets. It’s more progressive than property taxes because wealthy individuals and corporations tend to own the most valuable land, often in form of downtown plots or large estates. Even a modest land tax in expensive cities could fund a lot of housing. For instance, a 1% annual tax on land that’s worth $100 billion in a city yields $1 billion per year, enough to finance bonds for thousands of affordable units, provide rental assistance, or seed equity funds.

Implementing LVT could face political pushback as any tax change does, but it may be more palatable if framed correctly. Emphasizing that land value is unearned wealth that was created by the community, so recapturing it for public benefit is fair. It’s not a tax on a person’s labor, on business profits, or on personally-funded improvements on privately-owned land; it’s a tax on land ownership. A land value tax could also be paired with reductions in other taxes. Many economists suggest an LVT in exchange for lower taxes on buildings or even reductions in sales or income taxes. This change could be sold as tax reform that stimulates growth since taxing land doesn’t hurt economic output, whereas taxing work or investment can.

In a decommodified system, if home prices level off, land values might also stabilize or drop since a lot of land value is based on expected future price gains. But even then, urban land will have value, and taxing it is wise. Say we massively upzone cities and housing becomes plentiful, reducing land scarcity and causing land values to drop significantly, the tax is self-correcting because it would it yield less revenue. Presumably, under these conditions housing is more affordable so less revenue would be needed for subsidies. In more likely cases, there will still be substantial site value differences to tax, consider the difference in land value between a city’s central business district versus its outer neighborhoods. That revenue can directly fund social housing construction and convert speculative value into public assets.

A land value tax can also fund anti-displacement measures. For example, a city could use LVT revenue to fund grants for lower-income homeowners to pay their tax or to maintain their homes, ensuring they aren’t forced to sell. This can quell fears that a land tax would push out elderly or fixed-income owners. Jurisdictions could also offer to let the tax accrue as a lien, paid when the house is eventually sold, which often recoups payment from the estate. Measures like these would ensure that no one is forced to sell due to the tax.

By capturing uplift for the public, a land value tax can help finance public investments like infrastructure, transit, or schools, which in turn supports housing. It closes the loop where normally a new subway stop might make nearby land skyrocket, benefiting private owners. Under LVT, the city automatically gets more revenue from that land which can pay off the subway investment. The cities of Hong Kong and Tokyo are well known for using this tactic. Although it is not definitionally a land value tax, their transit agencies own land and use “value capture” to finance expansion of their transit services. For housing, this means that we can invest in amenities and not worry that it will just price the poor out because we would claw back the value to reinvest in affordability.

Land value taxation is a powerful tool to reduce speculative incentives and generate funds for housing solutions. Given its efficiency and fairness, LVT deserves a central placement in the policy portfolio for purposes of decommodifying housing. 

Expanding Social Housing and Mixed-Income Developments to Reduce Stigma

If we are to decommodify housing significantly, social housing must play a much larger role in the housing ecosystem. A major expansion of social housing is needed to offer quality, affordable homes to a broad range of people. This expansion, if done thoughtfully, also presents an opportunity to reduce the stigmatization often associated with public housing in some countries by ensuring that developments are mixed-income, well-designed, and well-integrated into communities. The goal is to make non-market housing a normal and attractive option for a large segment of society, akin to how it is in some European and Asian cities, thereby undercutting the narrative that only private homeownership can provide a good life.

Let’s clarify what we mean by social housing. It includes traditional public housing that is government-built and managed, but also other models like municipal housing companies. To fight stigma, scale and inclusion are critical. A lesson from Vienna, Austria is instructive. Often touted as a model, Vienna has devoted substantial resources to housing for over a century. Nearly 46% of the city’s housing stock is either owned by the city or provided by non-profit housing associations with public support (“Affordable Housing,” 2021). Crucially, this housing serves a wide range of incomes. Middle-class professionals live alongside working-class residents in these developments, because eligibility thresholds are broad and many people choose to live in social housing for its quality and price, even if they could afford market rent in a private development (“Affordable Housing,” 2021). Additionally, design excellence has been a hallmark of Vienna’s approach. The city’s social housing, Gemeindebau, historically featured distinctive architecture, courtyards, and included amenities like clinics, libraries, and parks on-site (Hernandez-Morales, 2022). They were meant to be indistinguishable from private housing in outward appearance and superior in terms of community facilities. This emphasis on quality blurs class lines. In Vienna, people don’t look at public housing and see an area that has been disinvested in, they see a building indistinguishable from a private condo. Early 20th-century Viennese industrialists realized that low rents helped workers and facilitated lower wage pressures (Hernandez-Morales, 2022). As social housing takes on a larger role, more people will experience housing as a service or right rather than a speculative bet, which in turn shifts expectations and reduces resistance to decommodification.

Applying these insights, policy recommendations for social housing expansion include:

• Make it Universal: Social housing should not be only for the very poor. The model followed in the U.S. mid-20th century by restricting public housing to low-income residents and often segregating by race led to concentration of poverty and stigma. This ensures a social mix that aims to avoid the negative externalities caused by previous incarnations of public housing in the US. It’s a feedback loop: broad use leads to broad support, which leads to more investment, leading to better housing, which leads to broader use.
• High Quality Design and Amenities: Public or social housing should be built to equal or better standards than private sector housing at the same time. Not luxury necessarily, but durable, sustainable, pleasant to live in, and pleasant to look at. Including green space, community space, and artwork or aesthetic touches goes a long way in community acceptance. Cutting corners because it’s “affordable” reinforces the idea that affordable = inferior. When families of varied incomes live in and visibly enjoy these homes, social housing can be normalized and destigmatized. Modern building techniques like modular construction can keep costs down while ensuring quality.
• Integration with Surroundings: Avoid isolating social housing in remote areas or clustering too much in one spot. Distribute it throughout cities in every neighborhood, and connect it to public transit and services. Mixed-income also means not creating a stark boundary: ideally, a passerby wouldn’t even know which developments are public vs private. To take it a step further, mixed-use development would be an ideal tool for this purpose. Allowing for commercial uses, retail, or eateries on the ground floor of developments would go a long way towards creating vibrant, thriving neighborhoods that serve the needs of residents.
• Financial Self-Sufficiency: To make social housing financially sustainable while maintaining affordability, it must be structured as a self-sustaining public asset rather than a subsidized welfare program. Charging market-rate rents ensures revenue neutrality, preventing dependency on external funding while leveraging the economies of scale inherent in mass public development to drive down per-unit costs. However, for this to function equitably, housing supply must consistently meet or outpace demand—a historically difficult but not impossible goal if land use regulations are liberalized to facilitate high-density, rapid construction, and if public ownership of land ensures it is the government who captures value appreciation rather than private developers. To keep construction costs manageable, industrialized pre-fabrication, modular design, and mass procurement of materials should be adopted, as seen in successful models like Singapore’s HDB and Vienna’s Gemeindebau. 
• Scalability: Financing is not the limiting factor. A public investment fund, land value taxation revenue, and municipal bonds, ensures continuous reinvestment in new housing rather than speculative cycles of boom and bust. By maintaining public ownership, housing revenue remains within the system, allowing long-term reinvestment while stabilizing urban housing markets by creating a price floor, a necessary counterweight to private market volatility. While some might argue that setting rents at market rates negates affordability goals, the fundamental premise is that when supply is abundant and profit is removed as a motive, market rents themselves will be far lower, making public housing de facto affordable without direct price controls. This approach transforms housing into essential public infrastructure—akin to transit or utilities—where access is universal, operations are financially self-sustaining, and long-term affordability is achieved structurally rather than through interventionist subsidies. The issue with affordability mandates and inclusionary zoning (IZ) is that if a tenant gets a higher-paying job, they’re at risk of becoming ineligible for their income-designated housing. In means-tested systems the moment a household’s income exceeds a threshold, they lose the home or subsidy, which can trap people or create churn that undermines community stability. We should be allowing people to remain in their homes even if their income rises.

The benefits of expanding social housing are numerous. It directly provides affordable units without relying on private trickle-down. It also puts competitive pressure on private landlords. If renters have the option of a well-maintained social unit at reasonable cost, private landlords must either improve and price reasonably or risk losing tenants. Social housing also acts as a stabilizer in recessions because governments can ramp up building when the private sector slows, and it keeps construction jobs and housing supply steady. Treat housing as infrastructure, this effect raises standards overall. Evidence shows that when done right, mixed-income high-quality developments enhance nearby property values because a well-designed complex can replace blighted lots or add local amenities. Building housing in mixed-use, dense, walkable neighborhoods compounds the positive economic effects of such developments. 

Preventing Displacement: Anti-Gentrification Measures in a Decommodified Housing Expansion

A critical concern in any major housing reform or expansion is displacement: ensuring that efforts to improve affordability or increase supply do not inadvertently push out existing residents, particularly lower-income, marginalized communities. Gentrification is the process of neighborhood change that sees higher-income residents displacing lower-income residents, and it can occur even with good intentions if protective measures aren’t in place. Therefore, a decommodification platform must include robust anti-gentrification and anti-displacement policies to ensure that current residents can benefit from new housing, infrastructure improvements, and public investment, not become victims of it.

We need to increase housing supply, but it’s not a paradox to state that increasing housing supply can sometimes be the catalyst for gentrification under certain market conditions. Often, new development happens in areas that were previously disinvested because land is cheaper there, and if the new units cater to higher-income renters because they allow private developers to set the rents at a higher threshold, they can change the area’s character and cost structure. However, research increasingly shows that not building in those areas also leads to displacement, just via a slower squeeze of rising rents due to scarcity. The solution is to pair housing expansion with intentional anti-displacement efforts.

Some key anti-displacement strategies include:

• Strong Tenant Protections: This includes rent stabilization/controls that limit how fast rents can rise for existing tenants, and “just cause” eviction laws to stop arbitrary or unjust evictions. By capping rent increases, cities can prevent landlords from pricing out tenants just because the market is hot. Evidence from places with rent stabilization shows it provides stability for those covered, though it must be balanced with sufficient supply creation. Laws requiring cause for eviction like nonpayment or violation of lease protect tenants from being evicted simply so the landlord can raise rent for a new tenant. Critics argue that rent control can deter new construction, but a temporary or targeted control can be used as a stop-gap to “buy time” while supply is added to the market (Dorazio, 2022).
• Property Tax Relief for Longtime Residents: In gentrifying areas, rising land values can lead to higher property tax bills, which can pressure low-income homeowners to sell. Policies like capping taxes as a percentage of income, assessment freezes or phase-ins for primary residences, or tax deferral programs for fixed-income or low-income individuals can alleviate this. A reverse municipal mortgage program could also be an option. This is where homeowners exchange upfront property tax obligations for a long-term public bond-like structure. Taxes accrue normally, and are payable upon sale, estate transfer, or voluntary refinancing. This model is more resilient and less dependent on home appreciation. The city would then recoup owed taxes through a combination of future property sales, LVT revenue, PIF contributions, plus a capped percentage of appreciation when the property is sold. If the home depreciates, the obligation will not exceed a predetermined cap. This means the city still gets its tax revenue over time, whether the housing market is stagnant, booming, or in decline.
• Cooperative Ownership: Washington D.C. has a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) that gives tenants first chance to collectively buy their building if the owner is selling. This can convert rentals into limited-equity co-ops, stabilizing them as permanently affordable and owned by the residents, thus locking in affordability amid rising values.
• Zoning Reform in High-Income Areas: One anti-displacement strategy is somewhat counter-intuitive: allow and encourage more housing in wealthier, already-gentrified neighborhoods. The Sightline Institute advocates upzoning affluent neighborhoods as a key step to prevent displacement elsewhere (Durning,2020). By upzoning high-opportunity areas, we can direct new development to places where it doesn’t displace lower-income residents (Durning, 2020). Instead of concentrating all building in “up and coming” neighborhoods, spread it to historically exclusionary ones. This also furthers social and economic integration, a worthwhile goal in itself. 
• Anti-Speculation Measures: In rapidly changing neighborhoods, some cities impose taxes or regulations to dampen speculation. Examples include taxing house flippers who buy and sell within a short time, or imposing vacancy taxes on empty units to discourage people from holding available housing as investments and not renting it out. These measures keep speculators from running rampant during transitions in market conditions.

The Center for American Progress suggests a framework of “Plan, Protect, Preserve, and Produce” for anti-displacement (Developing an Anti-Displacement Strategy, n.d.). This can be achieved by using data to see where rents are rising fastest and targeting those areas for interventions before displacement peaks (Developing an Anti-Displacement Strategy, n.d.).

The Impact of Mass Social Housing Development on Homelessness

The fundamental driver of homelessness is housing unaffordability, not personal failure, substance use, or mental illness, though these factors can exacerbate vulnerability. A growing body of research shows that rising rents and housing scarcity are the single biggest predictors of homelessness rates (Fisher et al., 2021; Shinn & Khadduri, 2020). As housing costs rise, those at the bottom of the income distribution are pushed into precarious housing situations, increasing eviction rates and forcing more people into homelessness. In attempting to reverse this concerning trend, studies have found that lowering rents through increased housing supply can dramatically reduce homelessness (Rosen et al., 2021; Gyourko & Molloy, 2015).

The question is whether the model proposed in this paper: large-scale, market-rate social housing without direct income targeting, can meaningfully reduce homelessness. The logic behind this model is that by massively increasing supply and ensuring non-speculative public ownership, we can drive down market rents for everyone, including the lowest-income households. Studies consistently show that for every $100 increase in median rent, homelessness rates increase by 9% in metropolitan areas and 3% in rural areas (Glynn & Fox, 2019). The Zillow Research Group (2018) found that cities with high housing costs such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York have homelessness rates up to five times higher than cities with abundant, affordable housing. 

A longitudinal study by Evans, Sullivan, and Wallskog (2016) demonstrated that evictions are one of the strongest predictors of new entries into homelessness, confirming that as rental costs rise, low-income households face greater precarity. Meanwhile, research by Rosen et al. (2021) shows that when housing markets experience downward price corrections, homelessness rates fall accordingly.

These findings suggest that expanding housing supply on a massive scale, if done properly, should reduce homelessness, even if the housing itself is not directly reserved for low-income renters.

Vienna’s public housing system provides an important reference point. Unlike most social housing programs, Vienna does not strictly limit units to low-income residents; instead, publicly owned housing makes up over 60% of the city’s rental market (Tudela, 2018). Because public housing operates at scale, it influences overall rent levels citywide, creating a market floor that keeps housing costs low across income levels. Homelessness rates in Vienna are among the lowest in the world, with only 0.07% of the population experiencing homelessness (Statistik Austria, 2022). Average rental prices in Vienna are 50% lower than in cities with similar income levels, such as Munich or Zurich (Andreas, 2021). Studies suggest that because housing affordability is structurally maintained, very few people fall into homelessness in the first place (Matznetter, 2020).

Finland has also virtually eliminated chronic homelessness by adopting a Housing First model, in which permanent housing is provided as a right (Pleace, 2018). The country simultaneously expanded public and cooperative housing, ensuring that low rents were available to all income levels. Finland did not rely exclusively on means-tested homeless housing but instead focused on ensuring that everyone could access low-cost, high-quality housing. As a result, chronic homelessness declined by 73% from 2008 to 2021 and shelters were shut down, as demand for emergency homeless services virtually disappeared (Y-Foundation, 2022). Finland’s public housing system is self-sustaining, and rent revenues continue to further fund housing expansion.

A common critique of non-means-tested public housing is that without income targeting, low-income renters may still struggle to access housing. However, economic models suggest that if supply sufficiently outpaces demand, rents will fall enough to accommodate even the lowest-income renters. Studies on housing supply elasticity (Gyourko & Molloy, 2015) demonstrate that doubling housing stock in high-demand cities could lower median rents by 25-50%. When market rents drop far enough, housing becomes de facto affordable for lower-income renters without requiring direct subsidies. A major mechanism through which housing supply impacts affordability is the filtering effect (Rosenthal, 2014). When new housing, whether public or private, is built, higher-income renters move into those units, freeing up older, lower-cost housing stock for lower-income renters. This vacancy chain effect results in declining rents across income brackets. Empirical research confirms that every new market-rate unit creates multiple downward filtering effects, particularly in cities with unrestricted housing construction (Mast, 2020). If social housing is built at scale and rents are set at market levels, these effects should increase housing availability for low-income renters without requiring direct subsidies. Long-term modeling suggests that if at least 30-40% of a city’s rental stock is public and non-speculative, market-wide rent stabilization occurs (Fischel, 2019). This ensures that rents remain low enough to prevent most at-risk populations from falling into homelessness. In contrast, cities where less than 10% of rental stock is public experience far higher homelessness rates.

While mass-market social housing should theoretically reduce homelessness, some residual challenges remain:

• Transitional Assistance for Extremely Low-Income Renters: Even with lower rents, some renters may still struggle to afford housing. A small portion of housing stock could be set aside for deeply subsidized housing for those unable to afford even market-rate social housing or these households can be served by targeted direct cash payments.
• Eviction Prevention & Tenant Protections: Some homelessness results from eviction, not just affordability. Strong tenant protections effectively prevent unnecessary displacement.

The empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that large-scale social housing expansion can significantly reduce homelessness by lowering market rents across the board to affordable levels. The examples put forth by Vienna and Finland, demonstrate that when public housing supply is abundant and well-managed, homelessness rates approach zero. While some residual policy interventions such as targeted rental assistance may still be necessary, a non-speculative, market-priced social housing system could serve as the backbone of an effective homelessness reduction strategy. The key is to build at a scale large enough to lower citywide rent levels, ensuring that housing remains accessible to all economic strata without relying on costly and inefficient income-based carve-outs.

Reducing Dependency on Homeownership for Financial Security

In order to make current and prospective homeowners comfortable with the objective of Decommodifying housing, we must diversify wealth-building incentives. As Brookings scholars suggest, we should provide and promote alternative savings vehicles so that housing isn’t the only attractive option for middle-class wealth-building. One reason homeownership is seen as so crucial is that renting often offers no wealth accumulation or stability. But what if we had financial innovation for renters? One such option could be portable savings plans for renters, a program that deposit a small portion of rent into a savings account for tenants, especially if it’s a public or nonprofit landlord. On a larger scale, ensure that institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also strongly support financing for multi-family rental housing, cooperatives, and other tenure forms, not just single-family homes. In the U.S., about 30% of rental mortgages are supported by Fannie/Freddie, but those could be expanded or made more favorable to affordable and social housing providers. They could also provide better terms for shared equity homeownership loans, encouraging lenders to issue them.

It is important to remove biases that favor ownership over renting. Policies like the mortgage interest deduction, property tax deduction, and even cultural biases in lending have put renting at a financial disadvantage. Some states have a renters’ tax credit, acknowledging renters indirectly pay property taxes via rent. If renting were not financially penalized, more people might choose it for lifestyle reasons without feeling like it was financially imprudent. In countries like Germany, long-term renting is common and not stigmatized, partly because tenant laws are strong and there’s less of a tax push to buy.

Reforming mortgage finance is about making the financial system not overly push homeownership as the sole wealth escalator, and about making that system safer and fairer. If people feel they can achieve financial security with a combination of other savings vehicles, homeownership can be relied on less as a means of accruing financial return, and more as a considered lifestyle preference. The goal is a system where housing is appropriately financed. A system where owning a home is a reasonable option, not the only ticket to stability. Renting or alternative housing arrangements should not be second-class. That requires rebalancing incentives. 

With a reformed finance system, a strong social housing sector, and measures to keep housing costs stable, we’d be well on our way to a society where one’s prosperity does not hinge on housing speculation. However, it is also instructive to examine why some well-meaning policies in the current paradigm like inclusionary zoning and similar affordability mandates fall short, and why a supply-side plus public investment strategy is often more effective.

Rethinking Inclusionary Zoning: Why Affordability Mandates Often Fall Short

Many cities have turned to inclusionary zoning (IZ) and affordability mandates imposed on new developments as a tool to achieve affordability in the market. The concept seems like common sense: when a developer builds a new housing project, require a certain percentage (say 10-20%) of the units to be rented or sold at below-market rates to lower-income households. This way, the city gets some affordable housing “for free” (i.e., without direct public spending) mixed within market-rate, attractive developments. However, while IZ can contribute in specific cases, it has significant limitations and can even backfire if not calibrated well.

The number of affordable units produced by IZ programs is often modest relative to need. A Mercatus Center review noted that IZ programs across the U.S. have delivered on the order of hundreds or thousands of units in cities that need tens of thousands (Hamilton, 2021). For example, New York City’s inclusionary zoning program over its first 25 years produced only about 172 units per year (Hamilton, 2021), in a city of over 8 million people with huge housing needs. Nationally, one estimate in 2010 was that all IZ policies combined had generated between 129,000 and 150,000 affordable units over decades (Hamilton, 2021). To put that in perspective, the U.S. is short millions of affordable units. A 2021 report published by AKRF stated that New York City needs an additional 560,000 housing units by 2030. And of that, 227,000 units were needed immediately to make up for past underproduction (Campion, 2024). In Massachusetts, a study found that one-third of the municipalities with IZ hadn’t produced any units as of 2019, and even the more successful ones like Boston and Cambridge got just over 1,000 units produced each after many years in effect (Smithberg, 2025). While some individual families have benefited from these policies, IZ does not meet broad affordability needs, and jeopardizes future affordability. According to Globe St., inclusionary zoning “helps address urgent, short-term housing needs for a few families, but… can discourage new supply and increase market-rate prices, jeopardizing long-term, broad-based affordability (Smithberg, 2025).”

When requirements are too onerous, developers often respond by building less or not at all, or by raising the prices on the remaining market-rate units to compensate for the affordable ones, which can further push middle-income buyers out. Essentially, an inclusionary mandate acts like a tax on new development. If not balanced by incentives like density bonuses or subsidies, it cuts into the profitability of building. If the math doesn’t “pencil out,” projects get shelved, meaning not only are the affordable units not built, but neither are the market units that would have added supply to the overall market. A report by the Mercatus Center bluntly titled “Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More Than It Helps” argues that IZ often increases housing prices generally and produces few units (Hamilton, 2021). The reasoning is that developers will only do it if they can charge more for the market units or if overall housing is so supply-constrained that even with the tax they still make money which would indicate that housing is still expensive across the board. In places with flexible land use and ample supply potential, developers might just choose not to build under IZ unless incentives like significant density bonuses make up the difference (Hamilton, 2021). But if the underlying zoning is restrictive, even density bonuses have limits. In some cases, optional IZ programs where a developer can choose to opt in for a bonus only attract interest in very high-priced markets. In the Washington DC area, only wealthy enclaves like Alexandria, VA saw developers using the voluntary IZ because the market prices were high enough to justify it (Hamilton, 2021). In more middle-market areas, the bonus wasn’t valuable enough, so no participation and thus no affordable units built via IZ.

Another critique is IZ tends to benefit a small subset of people who essentially win a lottery getting their below-market unit, but it does nothing for those who don’t get picked. It can even create odd side effects. Middle-income families who don’t qualify for the subsidized unit but also can’t afford the high market rent are squeezed out. It’s a Band-Aid rather than a cure. IZ units often come with complicated compliance and monitoring requirements. Compared to simply funding public housing or vouchers, IZ is indirect and bureaucratic. It also typically relies on new construction instead of addressing preserving existing affordable homes.

Given these shortcomings, we can see why supply-side interventions and public housing investment may be more effective. Supporting abundant supply-side intervention would mean broadly loosening zoning regulations to allow more housing to be built by the market, and public investment meaning the government directly funding construction or issuing subsidies. The evidence suggests that increasing overall housing supply is crucial to affordability. When housing is abundant, landlords have less leverage to raise rents.

The scale needed to reduce housing costs to affordable levels is large, and requiring each private project to include a handful of cheaper units is an inefficient way to reach that scale. It might be better for the government to collect resources through dedicated revenue, and build or fund affordable housing en masse. For example, instead of 10 separate luxury buildings each with 5 affordable units sprinkled (50 units total), the city could have simply used generated revenue to build a 200-unit affordable building, achieving more with economies of scale. Some jurisdictions do have “fee in lieu” options where developers pay into a housing fund instead of building units on-site. This can work if the city actually puts that money to use quickly.

Supply-side reform like eliminating harmful zoning regulations can open up whole new areas for apartments or townhomes, which can significantly increase supply over time and lower costs for families of all income levels. Inclusionary zoning can be seen as an attempt to force affordability in a context of scarcity that zoning caused. It’s like treating symptoms instead of curing the disease. If you remove the artificial scarcity by upzoning, more affordable units would get built naturally. Additionally, if public entities themselves build housing social housing, they can target affordability precisely where needed without contorting the private projects.

Inclusionary policies can have a place if done in moderation and if the market can bear them, especially to promote mixed-income integration. But the hidden cost is slow growth and higher market prices. It’s not good practice to make them the primary strategy for producing affordable housing at scale. 

Supply-side interventions like zoning reform, speeding up permitting, and reducing unnecessary regulatory costs directly address the root cause of high housing prices: lack of supply relative to demand. When combined with substantial public investment in housing, this approach yields far more affordable units and lower overall costs than reliance on inclusionary mandates. A city serious about affordability would streamline development of all kinds of housing and dedicate significant energy and resources towards building housing, not assume it can delegate that task to private developers and a few tax credits or mandates will be enough to deliver a healthy market.

By refocusing on these strategies, policymakers can avoid the pitfall of well-intentioned policies that do little or even worsen the situation. Instead, they can create an environment where housing is abundant and affordable by design, and where public housing is sufficiently provided to meet the needs of the market.

Towards a Stable and Equitable Housing Future

Housing does not have to be a commodity to deliver prosperity. Decoupling housing from wealth-building is not only possible, it may be essential for economic stability and social well-being in the 21st century. Over-reliance on homeownership as a speculative asset has left too many people vulnerable to market swings, too many excluded from safe and affordable shelter, and too many resources tied up unproductively. By reorienting the market, we can refocus housing on its core purpose: providing homes that form the bedrock of healthy families and communities. At the same time, we can develop alternative vehicles for wealth and security that don’t depend on perpetual housing inflation.

Align the housing finance system with stability. Encourage alternatives to the 30-year mortgage model, such as shared equity loans or even long-term rental options with similar protections. Enhance renter’s rights and consider offering benefits analogous to homeownership, such as a Renter’s Tax Credit, or public “security deposit savings” programs that mandate a percentage of rent payments be directed into the public investment fund.

This would be a big transition, it is important to phase policies in a logical sequence. Early wins could include policies that present alternatives to housing wealth. The land value tax might logically come next, proving the model. Social housing investments can ramp up as public housing funds are created from LVT or general revenue. Throughout, maintain a coalition of renters, labor, and enlightened homeowners who see the benefit. As more people begin to benefit and experience this new system, support will grow, creating a virtuous cycle.

The outcome of these actions, if pursued diligently, would be transformative. We would see market rate housing costs finally begin to stabilize and come into line with incomes across the board. The effect that this would have on people’s lives cannot be overstated. Whether rich or poor, millions of Americans currently deal with housing prices artificially inflated by destructive policies and pernicious cultural attitudes. Reversing these harmful trends would lead to an economic and societal reordering, on the order of which we haven’t seen in decades. People would save money on housing that they could then spend in the wider economy, enhancing general prosperity. Neighborhoods could be revitalized without kicking out their residents, preserving community bonds. The wealth gap and especially the racial wealth gap, tied to homeownership disparities, would shrink as alternative wealth-building tools and equitable housing access come into play (Baiocchi & Carlson, 2021). Economic stability and efficiency would improve because market conditions are now feeding into state-controlled mechanisms powering the tools of economic growth and prosperity.

In a decommodified housing system, the American Dream (or any nation’s equivalent) might be redefined: not owning a big house that makes you rich, but living in a community where everyone has a decent, affordable home and the freedom to pursue education, career, and happiness without the burden of outsized costs. Prosperity would be measured in security and quality of life, not Zillow estimates. 

For policymakers, the task is to take these ideas and translate them into legislation and local programs. There will be opposition from those who profit excessively under the current system but as we have argued, many of their talking points can be defanged by allying with communities and meeting the needs of ordinary homeowners. The proposals herein are not about harming any group, but about realigning incentives and resources for the common good. Economic stability outside homeownership means creating an economy where housing can be a stable platform for all. Achieving it will require bold steps, but the benefits are immense and lasting.

The evidence and examples cited show that each piece of this vision has been tried somewhere and has delivered positive results. Continuing the status quo likely means ever-worsening affordability crises, periodic market crashes, and intensifying inequality. By contrast, embracing housing decommodification offers a path to long-term stability, inclusivity, and genuine prosperity for the general public. It realigns the housing market with its fundamental purpose and ensures that economic well-being is grounded in stability and affordability. The choice should be clear: we can stick with a housing model that leaves too many behind, or we can build a new model where housing is accessible, community investments are made into equity and sustainability, and prosperity is shared by all. The latter is not only more egalitarian but also economically sound, ensuring long-term stability, reducing social costs, and fostering a thriving, inclusive urban environment where everyone has a secure place to call home.

References

Madden, David & Marcuse, Peter. In Defense of Housing: The Politics of Crisis (2016).

Urban Institute. “Decommodification and Its Role in Advancing Housing Justice.” (2023).

PRRAC (Poverty & Race Research Action Council). Thomas Silverstein, “Negating Objections to Housing Decommodification…” (2024).

CEPR (VoxEU). Woloszko & Causa, “Housing and wealth inequality: A story of policy trade-offs.” (2020).

National Mortgage Professional. “Study: One in Five Homeowners Feel House Rich, Cash Poor.” (2019).

Brookings Institution. “Rethinking homeownership incentives to improve financial security…” (2022).

The World Economic Forum. (2022, March 23). What is land value tax and could it fix the Housing Crisis?. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/03/land-value-tax-housing-crisis/ 

Fourth Estate (GMU). “Land value tax: The overlooked solution to the housing crisis.” (2024).

Dorazio, Justin. “Localized Anti-Displacement Policies.” Center for American Progress, 26 Sept. 2022, www.americanprogress.org/article/localized-anti-displacement-policies/.

Aitor Hernández-Morales. June 30, 2022. Politico EU. “How Vienna took the stigma out of social housing.”

Wikipedia – Affordable housing (Vienna model). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing#:~:text=range%20of%20incomes%20live%20in,built%20public%20housing%20units%20and

Smithberg, K. (2025, March 10). Inclusionary Zoning Policies May Discourage New Housing Supply. Benefitspro.com; Globe Street. https://www.globest.com/2025/03/10/inclusionary-zoning-policies-may-discourage-new-housing-supply/

Hamilton, E. (2021, February 8). Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More than It Helps. Mercatus Center. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/inclusionary-zoning-hurts-more-it-helps

Durning, A. (2020, August 3). Five Steps to Prevent Displacement. Sightline Institute. https://www.sightline.org/2020/08/03/five-steps-to-prevent-displacement/

R Street Institute. “Why can’t the US reform its housing-finance sector?” (2016). https://www.rstreet.org/research/why-cant-the-us-reform-its-housing-finance-sector/#:~:text=A%20countercyclical%20LTV%20%28loan,bubbly%20markets%E2%80%94thus%20providing%20a%20financial

Biaocchi, G., & Carlson, H. J. (2021, November 14). Housing is a social good. Boston Review. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/housing-is-a-social-good/#:~:text=mortgage%20underwriting%20guidelines%20that%20institutionalized,sale%20to%20people%20of%20color 

Grounded Solutions Network. “Shared Equity Homeownership.” https://groundedsolutions.org/strengthening-neighborhoods/shared-equity-homeownership/#:~:text=Shared%20equity%20homeownership%20is%20a,with%20preserving%20the%20community%E2%80%99s%20investment

Sean Campion, Director of Housing and Economic Development Studies, & Campion, S. (2024, June 27). A building crisis. Citizens Budget Commission of New York. https://cbcny.org/building-crisis 

Aladangady, Aditya, Jesse Bricker, Andrew C. Chang, Sarena Goodman,

Jacob Krimmel, Kevin B. Moore, Sarah Reber, Alice Henriques Volz, and Richard A. Windle (2023).

Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2019 to 2022: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances.Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October, https://doi.org/10.17016/8799

Lynkova, D. (2024, July 16). 28 millionaire statistics: What percentage of Americans are millionaires?. Spendmenot. https://spendmenot.com/what-percentage-of-americans-are-millionaires/

Developing an anti-displacement strategy. (n.d.). Local Housing Solutions. https://localhousingsolutions.org/plan/developing-an-anti-displacement-strategy/