I didn't quite glean a thorough understanding of the model from the article. It sounds like it's:
1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent.
2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months.
3) Eventually, I own enough of a share of the property that I no longer have to make payments, similar to having paid off a mortgage. I'd be responsible for upkeep (e.g. roof repairs), property taxes, that sort of thing.
What I'm not understanding, though, is how this passes down. If I'm a partial owner and move, doesn't the next buyer have the same issue raising capital that the model tries to address? Does it not also mean that I could become a landlord in my own right, and begin renting to another occupant, who stands to build no wealth themselves?
1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent.
2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months.
3) Eventually, I own enough of a share of the property that I no longer have to make payments, similar to having paid off a mortgage. I'd be responsible for upkeep (e.g. roof repairs), property taxes, that sort of thing.
What I'm not understanding, though, is how this passes down. If I'm a partial owner and move, doesn't the next buyer have the same issue raising capital that the model tries to address? Does it not also mean that I could become a landlord in my own right, and begin renting to another occupant, who stands to build no wealth themselves?