This seems to be a fantastic idea. Make people property owners by their own efforts and hard work. Make absentee landlords pay for the actual costs society incurs because of them. Of course the rub on this would be the implementation. It would need to be done in such a way the the homesteaders were required to improve the property (as the Homesteading Act of 1862 did). It would need to be backed up by resources that would educate and enable people to participate. And it would need to have strict requirements that made sure that people did not abuse it.

A government solution with strict oversight to prevent abuse? Good luck with that!

Since Reagan: private enterprise solution with little oversight to prevent abuse? Good luck with that! disigny

NYC had programs in the 1980's for people who lived in abandoned (city-owned) buildings to collectively renovate them. Alot of the renovation came in the form of "sweat equity", but of course not all of it could since licensed plumbers and electricians were needed to perform appropriate repairs. These people were squatters who were made owners by the city only after bringing the buildings up to code and agreeing to pay the tax arrears (or a portion of), and paying NYC property taxes ever after. I'm kind of surprised that the writer doesn't mention this, but I suppose I shouldn't be- Slate writers are a pretty ill-informed bunch, and obviously averse to doing any kind of research. Many participants in these buildings bailed before becoming owners, because the cost of bringing an apartment complex up to code, plus the tax arrears, could be quite expensive, and at the time you could just find cheaper accomidations over the bridge in Brooklyn (not anymore!) or go squat somewhere else. But some stuck with it and obtained apartments at well below market rate. I know a woman whose parents did this as she grew up in this situation. Her parents were from Puerto Rico, and came to NYC to work, first squatting in then renovating a building in alphabet city, a lower east side neighborhood infamous in the 80's for drug violence and heroin od's. Now, of course the neighborhood is totally gentrified, because many of the folks who did the ground work of bringing the buildings up to code sold to developers once they were allowed to take possesion (clauses by the city specified occupancy for a certain amount of time before this could happen, some people instead actually shared ownership with the city, meaning only holding onto a portion of the sale price, still others were simply barred from selling- depended on the property). Most of the people who did this were artists who still live there, my friend's experience being a little unusual.Of course, I'm talking about a small program in a densely- populated, tightly- regulated city with a huge bureaucracy. Would it work in suburbia? Who knows? But it is not a new idea, and has worked in the past.