The Culture of Dependence


How to solve the foreclosure, homelessness, mortgage and housing problems

It is not surprising that a larger and larger proportion of the US population is feeling increasingly powerless and dependent. It is also becoming more and more evident to an increasingly large majority that this is no accident.

How we got here

Like the drug addicts who cannot live without the daily fix from the drug pusher, for which they would do anything, the 99% are feeling more and more anxious about their very existence. Why? Because, like the drug pushers, the providers of services, consumer goods and employment: the corporations and the people that run them, have engineered a society in which you cannot live without their "product". This is accomplished by constant brainwashing (advertising and social engineering) and when this fails, by passing laws that force people to buy "products" (like insurance) that they otherwise wouldn't buy, or by making the alternative so costly (in money, harassment or jail time) that there is essentially no choice. To live in such a way, the corporations are so kind as to provide a way by which the addicts can sell their time in order to "earn" an intermediate form of "wealth" that is immediately recycled into their pockets.

Government, as the proper subsidiary of the corporations that it is, does its duty by taxing the individuals and thus insures that they always will need "a job" in order to not be homeless (property taxes or rent have to be paid), and to have the essentials to survive. In the past, subsistence was possible in a much more self-sufficient manner, but of course third parties (government and businesses) can't profit from someone that grows her own food or barters with the local community, so laws were passed (zoning, health, etc...) to prevent that kind of self-sufficiency. With the only remaining option being the purchase of food, energy, and other necessities from the corporations, a job now becomes indispensable. This is sustainable as long as the supply of jobs is plentiful, but this is no longer the case.

The Left-Right non-choice

The left and right wings of the corporate party in permanent power have slightly different views on which they base the essentially one-choice elections, but they both foster the permanent dependency of the lower and middle classes on the "producers" who end up with all the riches and power generated by everyone.

The left, under humanitarian pretenses, keeps people dependent on government programs. This ensures that as soon as the corporations have a need for low cost labor, there's an ample supply of people willing to work for almost nothing. It helps to brainwash said individuals with "protestant work ethic" guilt that keeps them in their proper place, grateful that they are given a handout and even more grateful when an employer gives them a job, for whatever pay and under any working conditions. Furthermore, the provision of those government services are usually outsourced to the very corporations that profit from the whole economy. A very handy way indeed to procure tax funds to increase their profits.

The right wants to dismantle all government services. No humanitarian pretense required. People should be left on their own to starve and thus be even more dependent on the "jobs" the magnanimous corporations are willing to offer. Of course, all the laws that prevent the middle and lower classes from being self-sufficient remain. We can't have uppity individuals who have no need for a corporate job. The stated goal of a corporation is to increase profit. Salaries are an expense. The lower the salaries are, the higher the profit, thus the push to eliminate minimum wage and child labor laws, co-opt unions and move production to the lowest labor cost on earth.

It is no surprise that our supposedly democratic government is resembling more and more the dictatorship of ownership, which is how corporations are run. The political system, prevalent in the middle ages, that functioned like this is back. We now live in a neo-feudalist system.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, income disparity and extreme poverty have existed in close proximity. Of course, there has been extreme poverty before that, but it was possible to be more self-sufficient and since communities were smaller, the village was available for support. It has been said that in modern society there should be no need for charity. The system should be engineered so that there is no need for it.

The Future of Employment

The current economic model is predicated on unlimited growth, which an increasing number of people are realizing is not sustainable. Only a few people are talking about the obvious incentives against employment growth and, of course, politicians are only talking about how to increase employment.

As mentioned earlier, payroll is an expense to be minimized. Still, whatever product or service that the business in question produces has to be manufactured and delivered. The obvious incentive is to use technology. Robots don't make mistakes, don't need coffee breaks, don't need sleep or vacations and can work 24 hours a day. Office work is increasingly being done by computers with the proper software. Even highly specialized occupations are being assisted and will eventually be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) software and specialized robots, such as medical diagnosis and surgery. Much has been written about these state-of-the-art tools and this is not the place to repeat the praises of high technology. What matters to this argument is that the incentive is there, plain for everyone to see, for technology to replace labor. Jobs are not coming back. In the foreseeable future all work that can be clearly defined will be done by computer: AI software and robots. A little further down the line, the computers will even be creating and designing the tools necessary for the next generation of production.

Where does that leave human beings?

In the long term, when all the goods and services needed for everyone to have a life with no unmet needs are available, all human beings will have all the time available for worthwhile and fulfilling pursuits. In the meantime, how can human beings leave the rat race of dependence?

A simple first step is to declare that certain basic needs are individual rights, and that the property required to satisfy those rights cannot be taken away by indirect means, such as failure to pay taxes. Among those rights should be the right to water, food, clothing, heat and shelter. The immediate objection is, of course, that these are positive rights that require someone else to provide them, as an individual without any material means cannot create land and the materials to build a house. We no longer live in the pioneer days of the open west. There are also the slippery slopes of "how much is enough?" and "who decides?" The proposals below provide analysis of these issues and many more ancillary questions.

Since water, food, energy and clothing are intimately tied to the individual and are provided in this sedentary society at the location of the main residence, or usually very nearby in the case of clothing, these items will be discussed right after the main need, which is...


Two factors determine primarily where people want to live in modern society: where the jobs are and "location, location, location", which is a way of saying the desirability of a specific property. If the first factor (job location) is taken out, many individual preferences dictate choice. It has become apparent that many people like to live near water (ocean, river, lake front) and thus the prices of property there have risen. Great views have a similar effect. The law of supply and demand: too many people want a few desirable properties and the prices rise. If a house were to be a right, who determines who gets what property? In the end, many factors determine where one chooses to live. Right now, the primary determinant is wealth. If housing were to be a right, the main questions are: Where? How big? and What procedure to allocate? Subsequent questions: Moving? Maintenance? Renovation? Expansion? Inheritance?


Before addressing the above details, a legal framework needs to be established. Since a dwelling that is a right cannot be taken from an individual, excuses such as failure to pay property taxes can no longer be valid. Property taxes, which in effect are no different than paying rent to the state, county or municipality would be abolished. A taxation scheme based on income would need to fund what property taxes now cover. It is ironic that a large part of the desirability of a location is the quality of the local school system, and those are funded by property taxes.

Property taxes in general make a mockery of the concept of private property. If property taxes are acceptable, no one should be under the illusion that private property exists. Stop paying the tax in question and you will soon find out who really owns your property. For this reason, the right to housing must be absolute. Either you live in a home or you are homeless. No back-door trickery can be allowed, just as the poll tax wasn't allowed to diminish the right to vote. The attempts to take away rights by the powers-that-be one chip at a time are numerous, and beyond the scope of this article.

Philosophically, taxes on all property should be eliminated. However, only taxes on dwellings are relevant to the point of this article. Furthermore, it can be argued that if only property taxes on housing that is entered into the right-to-housing program are eliminated, it will provide an incentive for voluntary participation.

Codes that restrict size would need to accommodate small sizes that are appropriate for an individual. Additionally, restrictions that prevent certain building practices and/or that require licensing should be reconsidered since they discourage (via cost) or prohibit do-it-yourself construction. Any building code should be outcome-only. The resulting structure should satisfy structural integrity requirements, but any requirement to depend on external paid "professionals" is no more than a job program for said "professional" and an impediment to self-sufficiency.

Permits should not be necessary, but even if they are, they should be obtainable at no cost. The moment that housing requires payment of any kind, whether it is a permit or a tax, the right to housing is destroyed. Any payment, since it has to be earned in a "job" essentially forces the individual into servitude to pay for what should be a right.

For a similar reason, renting a dwelling is incompatible with the right to housing. Even if the amount of the rent is paid by the government, the tenant doesn't own the property and is therefore at the mercy of the landlord. Furthermore, this transfer of taxpayer money is landlord welfare. Not much different from corporate welfare.

Who pays for this "right"?

It has been argued that basic income is a solution to this future of diminishing, and eventually disappearing, employment. The right to housing is not dependent on basic income, or any other income. However, just as basic income, the right to housing comes, as all other rights, from the political structure of the country, which in turn comes from the consensus of the people. It thus should be considered a dividend available to every resident, just like shareholders share in the profits of a corporation. Unlike a corporation though, every individual is limited to one share, or dwelling, of the national housing stock. Given that people tend not to live alone, those that decide to live together can combine their shares and live in a larger house. As children are born, they too are assigned a housing share.

This is not much different from how everyone shares in other public works, such as the Interstate Highway System and other aspects of the country. Of course, the tendency in the last 30 years has been to privatize as much as the business interests could get away with to funnel the "usage fees" to their pockets, but "private profit, public loss" and the merits of privatization is a subject for another time. For this discussion, though, it is important to note that any such "usage fees" only serve to make the people more dependent on corporate jobs as accessing now-private services requires money.

Since land and housing resources are not unlimited, it is reasonable to place some limits on size and a clear and fair allocation procedure. In the current system, wealth is the primary, if not the only, limit. In the new system, the limit can be set based on existing housing stock or, for new housing on a size dependent on location, type of housing and the average wealth of the country or region at the time.

Yet another bureaucracy?

Not really. Property records are already kept. There are well-established procedures for all types of real-estate transactions and activity. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is already huge and deals with many issues that would become obsolete, like foreclosures, mortgages and low-income housing. Even after shifting its mission to manage the right-to-housing program, it is likely that its size could be cut dramatically. Furthermore, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would become obsolete. In light of the recent housing crisis, this would be good.

A properly thought out policy can be fair, not unduly cumbersome, and better than the current system with its massive homelessness and foreclosure problems. Appendix 1 proposes one such policy.

The opposition

It is to be expected that those who profit from the current system will vigorously oppose any change. In this case it is most likely to be the debt profiteers. As has become obvious recently, debt is not good for society. It appears that a consensus is being reached in that direction. The main obstacle to this system becoming reality is the status quo in politics, safely in the pockets of the banks. Hopefully the social movement now under way will be able to overcome the special interests.


Where one chooses to live is today mostly dictated by where one's job is. Since the highest paying job will be less necessary when housing is a right, more and lower paying jobs (possibly more satisfying) would be available and be desirable, opening up larger areas to desirable living. Still, it is likely that too many people would want to live in specific areas. Now that the highest bid is not the only way to acquire a home, how to find housing that would become the REAL property (as opposed to being rented from the government via payment of real estate taxes) of individuals as a right?

How do people look for a house? They check which houses are for sale. Similarly, once the right-to-housing program is up and running, the place to check would be the database at the FHA of all the houses that are available. After a similar process to what is done today, the title is transfered, without any exchange of money, and the new owner can move in. If a house not yet in the program is for sale, the prospective owner requests that it be included in the program, the purchasing department of the right-to-housing program negotiates with the seller and buys the house for inclusion in the program. Once that is done, it is given to the new owner.

It is important to realize that the fact that no money was paid (once inside the program) does in no way detract from the fact that title has in fact been transfered. The new owner really owns the house. In fact, because of the lack of property taxes, property rights would be even stronger than today.


The mortgage crisis has left at least a million homes empty, possibly up to 3 million (see this article). All regions have been affected. The government could purchase these empty homes for pennies on the dollar and thus start the right-to-housing program. These homes would be given to qualified non-owners. Possible preference could be given to those that have lost their house to mortgage fraud or foreclosure.

Existing homeowners would remain in their current houses, the right-to-housing program would pay off any outstanding mortgage and the home would be owned outright by the resident and from then on be part of the right-to-housing program. When such an owner desires to move into another right-to-housing dwelling, his equity will be reimbursed.

For those that don't own currently and that are willing to move (assuming that nothing is available locally) the vast surplus of "FEMA trailers" used for hurricane relief, would be allocated to those people and also become part of the right-to-housing program. While this is sub-standard in most people's minds, it certainly is better than being homeless and living on a subway grate, a tent or a homeless shelter.

For those that want to build, suitable land will be bought, subject to the policy restrictions and entered into the program. Then the owner can build, or have built, a minimal house with materials provided by the right-to-housing program. Any addition beyond the basic unit (for however many housing shares of the future residents) would be the responsibility of the owner. This would be a bonus for the program since it would be paid for privately and yet it would be part of the house for future owners.

Eventually, the right-to-housing program will include enough units for every adult in the country. Of course, this does not prevent anyone with the means to purchase additional homes like it is done now, but since everyone will be the rightful owner of a dwelling, the need to rent will be very limited and the need for speculation will disappear. The need for mortgages will also, thankfully, be a thing of the past.

While the cost of buying foreclosed homes, paying off mortgages, and buying existing homes at appraised value would not be insignificant. It would be much less than the trillions lost in the housing crisis bubble and mortgage fraud crime spree. As this would be a one-time start-up expense, possible sources of funding could be the hundreds of billions to be recovered from the banks or existing funds already allocated to the FHA for departments that would become obsolete.


Any house in the right-to-housing program can not be sold. It can only be transfered to another individual or group as part of the right-to-housing program. This can be done only voluntarily by the owner when he/she decides to move to another house. The house then becomes available for the next individual or family.

The destination house obviously has to be empty by choice of the former owner. If a home is for sale and not previously in the right-to-housing program, it can be entered in the program by outright purchase by the right-to-housing agency and given to the individual that is moving.

For those that want to build with portable technologies (such as this one), the house can actually be moved to a new piece of land.

If an owner has added to the current house at his own cost, a "merit" could be given that would give him preference in cases of contention or size mismatch for the next house. This is a way to reward investments in the program.

If one of the occupants of a dwelling moves out, as after a divorce, is it proper to force the remaining owner to move too? This is what happens today in many divorces but it is twice as disruptive as it could be. In divorce cases in particular, the court will have the final say and if so ordered, the remaining owner could be forced to move out. If not so ordered, he/she is now living in a house twice as big as s/he might have gotten in the first place. Still, since the property right is inviolate, it is not appropriate to force a move just on the basis of too much space. In any case, the incentive to "sell" so that the moving-out party gets half wouldn't be there.

In the case of an amicable move, all that would happen is that the party that leaves will look for another house in the standard way.

A move from/to a right-to-housing dwelling involves no transfer of money. Still, a first generation owner (one that has introduced his house into the program) has some equity in it. When he moves out, this equity is reimbursed.

A positive side-effect of this type of transaction is that the biggest expense and uncertainty of moving is no longer an issue. Social mobility will increase and be less stressful as speculative moves in prices would be a thing of the past.

Maintenance, Renovation and Expansion

Everything decays in life. Since housing as a right cannot be dependent on income, it is necessary to set up an infrastructure for the proper maintenance of the housing stock. Just as it is not acceptable for someone's right to housing to be taken away due to circumstances of employment or illness, it is just as unacceptable that someone should be rendered homeless because the home needs repair or was damaged by whatever cause. Currently this is mostly done via insurance, but this is inefficient and of course requires income, thus it is incompatible with a right. The best way to maintain a house is of course by the owner. Then the job is done right and with the pride of ownership. Materials can be requested of the right-to-housing program/agency or reimbursed after the fact. Non-owner maintenance has to be dealt with carefully as it could easily become a job program for unscrupulous contractors. Probably the most efficient way is to have a maintenance department that, when needed, would repair any home in the right-to-housing program. Of course there need to be disincentives to prevent carelessness and willful destruction, but this is no different from the problems insurance companies face.

Renovation, if it is not necessary, would be paid for by the owner. Necessity could be another bureaucratic morass, but with clear rules, not unlike what an insurance company would use to decide what to cover or not, it should not be any more difficult. And because by definition there is no profit involved in the right-to-housing agency, it should be cheaper than if done by insurance companies.

Expansion, if needed because another individual has joined the household, whether a child or adult, would be done and paid for by the right-to-housing agency, or if there is no room for expansion, the family can move to a larger dwelling.

For residential units in a building the maintenance fees would be handled the same way as they are now and done by the right-to-housing maintenance department.


Just like is done currently, a right-to-housing home can be inherited. However, the adult heir that inherits it can only keep one such home at a time, so s/he can choose to move into that house and give up the current one to the next owner, or keep the current one and let the inherited one go to the next person that is interested in it. While this might seem like expropriation, since the house was originally given or built by the right-to-housing agency, it is only fair that it goes to the next individual.

A child can inherit and keep it, if desired, until reaching 18 years of age, even if the child still lives in the parental household.

If a home that is given up, whether the current residence or the inherited one, was entered in the program by the individual in question, the equity in the house is reimbursed. Here again, just compensation is provided.

An inherited house that is not in the right-to-housing program, can be purchased by the agency from the heir at the appraised value and become the primary residence or it can be kept outside the program as a second home. In the former case, just compensation was given to the heir in the purchase.

As an additional incentive, the heir can appoint the person to whom the house will go to. This way, stronger ties in the community can be created.

Will this create Ghettos?

Given that the right-to-housing program could start with foreclosed homes, even if whole neighborhoods are empty, any kind of occupancy is better that vacant homes. When vacant homes are evenly distributed geographically, no specific area would be overly affected. Furthermore, the homes are individually owned (pride of ownership), so they can't be taken away under any circumstance. As the maintenance is taken care of by the maintenance department, it is likely that the upkeep would be better than is the case currently.


There are currently at least a million vacant homes, so it is obvious that the housing stock exceeds demand, as demand is currently calculated. Part of that surplus would be filled quickly when the program is started, but it's likely that for an indefinite period of time, maybe permanently, there will be houses that are not part of the right-to-housing program. Those are likely to be the mansions of the super rich. This is not a problem in the least. Since the purpose of the right-to-housing program is to rectify the problems of debt, homelessness, high cost of housing and dependence on external factors for essential needs, it is squarely aimed at the 99%. Yet, it is totally voluntary and can co-exist with the current system. In fact, it is anticipated that the market for second homes will remain vibrant for those that can afford it.

Because of the lack of property taxes on the primary residence, stability and security will be absolute and not dependent on external factors.

Housing is currently the largest expense that most people have. It includes the cost of purchase (often artificially inflated), mortgage interest and fees, insurance, maintenance, or rent. Even without considering utilities (addressed next), all this would disappear, causing the standard of living to rise dramatically in all areas where the program is implemented.

Depending on what percentage of one's income goes towards these expenses, entering the right-to-housing program would be equivalent to a 25 to 75% raise, or a tax cut to zero since the income tax paid by the lower classes is often less than what is spent on housing.

Related Rights: Water, Energy, Food, Clothing

Just like dwelling maintenance, a right becomes meaningless if it is dependent on money that has to be obtained by selling one's life to the corporations. For that reason, water and sewer need to be subsidized and free to the home owner.


The current way this is done is via municipal services. Unfortunately, maintaining that infrastructure takes real resources, but providing those services has become yet another profit center, especially when they have been privatized. It is not proper that something as essential as water and sewer services be left in the hands of private corporations whose stated goal is to pad their bottom lines. When possible the water distribution system and the sewer system need to be brought back to their original purpose: provide running water and sewer, not provide private profits. Everywhere that municipal services have been privatized, the cost of the service has gone up and the level of service down. As any economist will say, if a resource is free to the user it will be wasted. Incentives need to be provided for the proper use of the right to water. This can start with free installation of water reclamation systems, such as this one. By making such systems part of the allowed renovation budget of the maintenance department, all home owners will want to install them since it will diminish their dependence on outside water, which will then become necessary only when the rainfall amount and storage capacity have been surpassed. For areas with insufficient rainfall, other self-sufficient mechanisms are to be encouraged: wells, waterway pick up, etc...

For not very densely populated areas, especially where existing water and sewer systems are not yet available, technology exists to purify waste on a small scale so septic tanks should be considered.


Heat and hot water are essential for comfortable living. Luckily here too technology exists to wean the home owner from the local electric and gas utilities. With the proper incentive: systems paid for by the maintenance department, the dependency on external energy will be minimized. With a properly insulated home, again a free upgrade to the home owner, there might not need to be any external energy required to provide heat and hot water. Of course a home designed from the ground up to be energy-independent, like this one, would have no need at all of external energy, so no dependence at all. Still, for existing houses, whatever little external energy is required would be free to the user. The right to electricity and warmth can not be taken away because a particular home owner happens not to have enough cash.


In the old days, many people grew their own food or traded locally. Today, thanks to zoning laws, lack of space and the food industry, many people are food-insecure. As this is an absolute requirement of life, it can be argued that food production is too important to be left to outside interests, especially when those interests have their own bottom line first and foremost in mind, as has been proven repeatedly by unsafe additives, genetically modified food, manufactured food, etc...

Every dwelling should be able to provide as much food as possible for its occupants. Food production has always been labor intensive and the main occupation of subsistence farmers. No one wants to go back to that model. Here again, technology to the rescue. Hydroponic greenhouses, whether in a backyard or a roof, or even in a sun room, can provide a variety of vegetables with minimal human intervention if the food production system is automated. The production of a balanced diet in a small space involves details that are beyond the scope of this article, but it is important to change the prevailing mind set that dictates that food is obtained at the supermarket via payment of cash, that first has to be obtained by selling one's life to the corporations.

Beyond what can be grown in the household, other local options exist: co-ops, community gardens, dealing directly with local farmers, etc... But it is important to keep in mind that if food is a right, it is the prime candidate for the use of basic income. It is not acceptable that anyone goes hungry in a cash crunch. Luckily, government programs exist (ie: food stamps) but everyone should be entitled to a basic supply of healthy food without the attendant shame and means test.


Modern manufacturing techniques have made clothing extremely affordable, at least the generic type. Luxury brands are of course another story: you're buying a name. For the immediate future, clothing is another prime candidate for basic income. Eventually, it is conceivable that there could be in every household a computer and cutting/sewing machines that could make clothing to order. No more sweat shops run by multi-national corporations.


The right to education is here primarily because in the current system, primary and secondary education are funded by property taxes. Since property taxes are incompatible with the right to own the primary residence, another way to fund education is required.

The first question that needs to be answered is: is it mandatory for someone to have an income in order to educate her children? If not, the funding of primary and secondary education has to come from general (income) tax revenue. Those that are making money and paying taxes on it would be funding the public schools. This is not much different than it is now. Only the type of tax changes. If yes, then public education, as it currently exists, disappears and other systems, like tax credits can be used to allow the parents to educate their children in private schools. Such a system is described here, but for college and beyond.

If the public education system is funded via income taxes, the next question is: at what level? Creating an income tax at the local level, where property taxes are now administered and collected, would have the least disruptive effect. Funding schools from state taxes brings allocation issues, but this is already being done to address the inequalities in wealth of different school systems. In the end all such funding is a political issue, now and in any other possible future.


Education is a commonly accepted positive right. The right to housing is no different. If this society can reach  consensus in the former, the latter is eminently feasable. The major impediment is those that profit from the current system and their lackeys in goverment. The Occupy Movement has recently been targeting foreclosed homes and empty buildings. This proposal addresses the same needs and has the potential to radically change, for the better, multiple aspects of life in the US. Naturally, extreme pressure is needed to affect change as radical as this, but in light of the global awakening that is presently happening, there is hope.

Appendix 1: Allocation policy

The current allocation policy is: "Money Rules". While this is efficient at maximizing prices, it is the economic equivalent of the law of the jungle. As has been proven, it also causes bubbles that eventually burst. Still, the law of supply and demand cannot be eliminated by decree.  Is it possible to define a new way to allocate scarce resources? If there were an unlimited supply, everybody would want a waterfront mansion. But the supply is not unlimited. Luckily the housing stock consists of all kinds of dwellings: stand-alone houses, townhouses and condos, in large varieties. An easy feature to quantify is size. Others are so subjective that they can only be delegated to taste, and everyone's is different. This is good to avoid contention. As long as the allocation policy and related algorithms are clearly spelled out and understood, and applied evenly without favoritism, they should be acceptable.

The search algorithm can present the user with an input by specific address or by neighborhood and then lead the user to the "best match" based on his requested location and number of shares/people that are to live at that address. This is not much different from how one now searches for houses for sale.

Gaming the system, at least in the important ways, should not be possible, as all owners in the program are on record in the program database, just like they are now in the county public records. For instance, owning/living in two places (within the program) would not be possible and raise an immediate red flag.


How to calculate the size of one share of housing stock, suitable for one person's needs? An arbitrary area can be used (neighborhood, town, county) and the average size calculated, divided by the average number of occupants. This would then become the "one share", or the living area (in square feet) for one person. This method has the advantage of being area-sensitive: what is considered acceptable living space in Manhattan is obviously smaller than in the country.

Alternatively, it can be decreed that 200 square feet (for instance) is the minimum needed per individual and thus that is the size of one share, nationwide.


For new construction, the nature of the neighborhood can determine the size of a parcel. It is probably not reasonable to dictate that, say, 1/2 acre per person is the proper amount of land in congested/high density areas. Still, since land is directly related to food production it is important.

For rural settings, a fixed number can be set, say: 1 acre per share/person.

Existing dwellings

Given the variety of designs out there, and the relentless increase in size throughout the years, it is highly unlikely that a (say) 200 Sq Ft home exists anywhere. What is to be done if a single individual wants to move into an existing house that is much larger? Various options can be considered:
This particular order would probably work well.

Contention for a specific dwelling

When a house is being sold nowadays, the highest offer wins. In the new system, the following criteria make sense:

Copyright © 20012, The Eclectic One.  All rights reserved.  To reprint in for-profit/for pay publications, contact
eclectic AT