You might be interested to check out the Viennese model - Approximately 220,000 municipal flats and 200,000 subsidized dwellings form the backbone of Vienna's housing system, housing about 50% of the population.

Prices in Vienna are so much more affordable than in comparable European cities - Munich, Hamburg, Berlin to speak of Germany, not to say Madrid, Paris, Barcelone, Milano.

In Singapore it seems 80% of people live in public housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore though I can't speak as to what the effect is on its housing market

Own nothing, be happy

UBI is perfect tool to make citizens obey to state. You'll always vote for your breadwinners.

Why, instead of centralised planned economy that failed ans killed millions people many times in history, not just lowering taxes and let people to decide how spend their capital individually? Game theory applied on UBI sounds really like an ugly idea.

I kind of lost the UBI plot, to be fair. I don’t really understand what UBI actually had to do with this exercise fundamentally, the exact same thing happens with or without it, it’s just that the floor of what “affordable housing” is gets risen. Unless you think that an unfettered, UBI-less economy doesn’t produce expensive housing? Which, I think we have many real world case studies in almost every major city in rich countries to disprove that assertion.

I do see what you mean, I think, now that I’m rereading and contemplating. A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Hmm.

Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement?

Por que no los dos?

I was not conflating the two - I literally meant that there are incentives in place to encourage landlords to develop new homes. I am not referring to groups whose primary interest is to develop and sell - but to develop and own.

I know a lot of landlords think they are a persecuted class that is providing a necessary service - but that largely isn't true.

Broadly you can imagine two scenarios for simplicity sake.

1) Housing supply is abundant. Landlords have to compete on service superior maintenance, better units, better locations, etc.). Renting a home behaves like any other service industry that we come to know and love.

2) Housing supply is constrained. The situation plaguing much of the modern world. Land is limited. Landlords earn a higher IRR from jacking rents than they do from buying additional units. The landlords profit from control of the access to a scare resource rather than from providing anything of value.

Plainly: rent-seeking is evil.

Because UBI is largely orthogonal to those things. It's a way of taking productivity gains and ensuring that the entire population benefits from them.

In response to what is deemed to be unreasonable and/or undesirable landlord behavior ... such controls would not stop landlords from continuing to earn from their properties.

Not everybody who buys a home is a landlord.

Maybe, but I had a good laugh at the implication, and now how you've stretched your reasoning, so I'm ok with it. Thanks.