Homes, development and opportunity

Selected direction.

Limit residential ownership and require large-holder divestment

Residential ownership rules shape who can buy and keep a home.

The proposal. Reserve residential ownership for individual citizens rather than institutional or large corporate portfolios, impose a meaningful ownership cap, and require affected large holders to divest. Give residents binding authority to approve or reject consequential private development and to choose their community’s growth and character.

How it would work. Divestment aims to release homes for individual purchase. The ambition is a substantial affordability change, on the order of 50% in home values, with acknowledged risks of disruption and negative equity for some borrowers. That is an ambition, not a forecast. A roughly 20-unit cap is an example, not a final rule. Communities may choose growth, limits, housing initiatives, or preservation; no universal local affordability mandate or obligation to subsidize neighboring housing is established. A working resident-vote process could combine general rules, initiatives, petition-triggered votes for major projects, and automatic votes for particularly consequential proposals.

Implementation. Define beneficial ownership, the cap’s geography, apartments, trusts, cooperatives, construction, inheritance, lender ownership, deadlines, financing, tenants’ rights, and enforcement. Test effects on renters, credit, construction, and actual supply; releasing existing homes is different from building more. Specify electorate, participation by renters, thresholds, scope, deadlines, appeals, and existing approvals for development votes. Property ownership must not buy extra votes. Protect individual rights, lawful obligations, and regenerative landscaping. A majority’s project approval still cannot commit dissenters’ tax contributions.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Selected direction.

Give residents binding decisions over consequential development

Residents need meaningful authority over consequential changes to their community.

The proposal. Reserve residential ownership for individual citizens rather than institutional or large corporate portfolios, impose a meaningful ownership cap, and require affected large holders to divest. Give residents binding authority to approve or reject consequential private development and to choose their community’s growth and character.

How it would work. Divestment aims to release homes for individual purchase. The ambition is a substantial affordability change, on the order of 50% in home values, with acknowledged risks of disruption and negative equity for some borrowers. That is an ambition, not a forecast. A roughly 20-unit cap is an example, not a final rule. Communities may choose growth, limits, housing initiatives, or preservation; no universal local affordability mandate or obligation to subsidize neighboring housing is established. A working resident-vote process could combine general rules, initiatives, petition-triggered votes for major projects, and automatic votes for particularly consequential proposals.

Implementation. Define beneficial ownership, the cap’s geography, apartments, trusts, cooperatives, construction, inheritance, lender ownership, deadlines, financing, tenants’ rights, and enforcement. Test effects on renters, credit, construction, and actual supply; releasing existing homes is different from building more. Specify electorate, participation by renters, thresholds, scope, deadlines, appeals, and existing approvals for development votes. Property ownership must not buy extra votes. Protect individual rights, lawful obligations, and regenerative landscaping. A majority’s project approval still cannot commit dissenters’ tax contributions.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Selected direction.

Support routes out of poverty with reasonable personal contribution

A framework for wellbeing must address barriers to improvement while recognizing differences in ability, circumstances, preferences, and community choices.

The proposal. Help people find practical routes out of poverty and expect effort from those able to contribute. Communities may choose different services and outcomes. Greater wealth alone creates no general duty to equalize another community’s resources.

How it would work. Voluntary help, agreed shared obligations, emergency protection, and remedies for demonstrated harm are distinct. Support could include skills, access to work, and useful public capabilities. No assumption of equal motivation or universal participation should be treated as an established fact.

Implementation. Define reasonable contribution, access to work and skills, and the treatment of disability, childhood, caregiving, and unemployment despite effort. No specific work test, benefit sanction, exclusion from essential services, universal cash payment, or executive-pay ratio is adopted. Social insurance and other undeveloped areas need their own substantive review. Compare effective existing support with targeted improvement before selecting a new program.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Working proposal. This is a working proposal, not an adopted policy.

Explore an executive-to-lowest-worker compensation limit

Executive and worker compensation merit a separate examination from public officials’ pay.

These questions do not establish an adopted cash-payment policy, universal basic income, or executive-pay ceiling. A maximum executive-to-lowest-worker compensation ratio was raised as a possible design, with 50, 100, and 200 times discussed as examples; no ratio was selected.

If developed, the pay proposal needs definitions of compensation, equity, contractors, part-time and international workers, and the treatment of subsidiaries. CEO-to-median-worker disclosures should not be presented as measurements of CEO-to-lowest-worker pay.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Open question. This is an open question. No substantive policy has been selected.

Education systems beyond local assignment

Local authority alone does not settle how education is funded or delivered.

The question. School funding, choice, standards, special education, vocational and higher education.

How to develop it. Identify what currently works, establish any concrete problem and examine evidence, affected people, rights, costs and alternatives before selecting reform. No complete policy for this subject has been adopted.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Open question. This is an open question. No substantive policy has been selected.

Social insurance and family/disability support

Support systems must account for age, disability, caregiving and unmet needs.

The question. Social Security and Medicare deferred; unmet needs and contribution constraints require inquiry.

How to develop it. Identify what currently works, establish any concrete problem and examine evidence, affected people, rights, costs and alternatives before selecting reform. No complete policy for this subject has been adopted.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Open question. This is an open question. No substantive policy has been selected.

Labor, business and consumer protection

Work, enterprise and consumer protections need substantive policy beyond an allocation of powers.

The question. Pay, safety, bargaining, licensing, entrepreneurship and protections; allocation of authority open.

How to develop it. Identify what currently works, establish any concrete problem and examine evidence, affected people, rights, costs and alternatives before selecting reform. No complete policy for this subject has been adopted.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.