Create more supply to meet the demand. Cut the red tape on new development by putting a cap on government fees, and a hard deadline for permits to be approved and denied permits appealed. Speed up the process and cut the costs There is a disconnect between the rate of new development and the rate of population growth.
Eliminate the property tax for one dwelling owners. You could also escalate the property taxes on each additional home owned by a person, family or controlled entity, and while that isn’t exactly a conservative value there could be a pain threshold where it becomes too expensive to own scores of SFRs forcing hoarders to sell. One house is free of tax, second homes is taxed, third home is taxed twice the rate, fourth home is double that etc. Not exactly that, but you get the idea. Again, it’s not a conservative value but making it uneconomical to hold too many SFRs would work to achieve the goal of creating more supply.
Some cities/states have tried to eliminate zoning, so where one parcel that held one SFR could be used to build multiple townhomes or multiple homes. A lot of pushback on homeowners about that idea destroying the character of neighborhoods. But, in conservative principles, if you own a parcel that could reasonably hold 4 small homes, the owner should be able to develop that.
“Create more supply to meet the demand.”
If LA was to be ‘affordable’ to everyone, almost everyone in Duluth (and Flint, Utica, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, East St. Louis, etc.) would move there.
If an area or job doesn’t meet your needs, move on.
In re: “Eliminate the property tax for one dwelling owners. You could also escalate the property taxes on each additional home owned by a person, family or controlled entity, and while that isn’t exactly a conservative value there could be a pain threshold where it becomes too expensive to own scores of SFRs forcing hoarders to sell. One house is free of tax, second homes is taxed, third home is taxed twice the rate, fourth home is double that etc. Not exactly that, but you get the idea. Again, it’s not a conservative value but making it uneconomical to hold too many SFRs would work to achieve the goal of creating more supply.”
Your shifting of the property tax burden will in time fail to produce sufficient local revenue as fewer and fewer properties will be anything other than the one not taxed property, as it will make less and less sense over time to be among those paying all the property taxes. There is no equity at all in your idea.