"...you cannot use your millions of acres of farmland to NOT farm. We do not have enough productive farmland that we can allow rich people to just buy it up and let it go fallow."

Pretty sure he actually can. I'm not aware of any law that says you have to take advantage of commercial opportunities, whether farming or any other gig. There might be laws saying he can't use it for something other than farming, like as a racetrack or something. Usually those are cooperatives' rules, like for a grain milling, or harvesting cooperative many farmers may join to share the cost of expensive harvesting equipment. Many dairy cooperatives have such rules, such that you can't sell, or turn a dairy, into a golf course, at least the Tillamook County Creamery Association does.

But the farmers don't have to milk cows. They just can't run beef cattle instead.

"...the tenants from Capitalism..."

Tenants are people that occupy a place. Tenets are rules or principles. I think you meant tenets, there.

"...they will take your land."

Probably. Few people test them. There is a form of title, allodial title, that pays no property tax. IIRC, there were some examples of allodial title in the Maui properties that burned. Allods are sovereigns that have no authorities over them with power to tax them, such as royalty. That's how I reckon most folks think property title should actually work in America, because we are called sovereign and free, but when it comes to property taxes, that theory is right out the window according to the republic that considers us subjects. In particular cases, such as Hawaii or Indian reservations, where indigenes had property title that never came from monarchs, and pre-existed any republics, both of which claim obeisance in the form of property tax is due them by their so-called subjects. I think some Hawaiians in Lahaina held their property as allods, ancestral lands predating the existence of any government with any claim to payments of tax for permitting them to possess their lands. The fires might have eliminated those allodial titles when the allods burned up. I don't know.

Fee simple title at least used to include mineral rights, and rights to the air space above your dirt, too. I have owned property that had such rights, and chased off helicopters with a shotgun. Water rights is a sticky issue in Oregon. Despite fee simple title theoretically coming with rights to the air space above it, water falling out of that air space, theoretically your property, isn't your property. Interestingly, there aren't any cases I am aware of where the water vapor in the air was claimed by the state of Oregon, so folks that precipitated that vapor into liquid water may not be violating the state's claim on all liquid water falling from the sky or flowing, or just sitting, on the land. It's illegal here to collect rain water from gutters on your roof. That's the state's water they say, and folks have lost cases in court - although I don't have specific understanding of the rulings and laws in those cases.

But water that you condense from vapor in the air, say inside your home, hasn't been ever a cause of action here, at least not to my knowledge, yet. Might be a way there of the state weaseling away the right to free air, because it's got water vapor in it. It's disgusting IMHO.

"...you cannot increase the rent more than 3%, while insurance is going up by much more than that. And mortgage rates are getting worse. And you can't kick out tenant."

These laws are really anti-renter. I would never rent to people there. Commifornia indeed. It's becoming very clear these are the kinds of ways they're kicking people off land, and more is coming, I'm sure, like claiming water vapor in the air is state property and charging an air tax to breathe it in, and then a CO2 emissions tax to breathe it back out.

Regarding the insurance, I wonder if any property owner has required tenants on rental property to pay their insurance costs as an insurance fee? If the state can arbitrarily take property from property owners, by permitting insurance rates to rise without enabling property owners to increase rents commensurately, the state should have to pay for it because that's a forced taking of private property, but I am unaware anyone has sent them a bill for it. Same with mortgage rates. If the state allows banks to increase rates on an owner's mortgage, the state should have to allow the owner to increase rents by proportional amounts - or pay the difference. Anything else is a taking by proxy of landowners rights in their property. Landowners had these rights to evict tenants, to charge whatever rent they wanted, and the state took them, which means under eminent domain laws the state is required to pay market rates to landowners for them. Scheming bastages have to be held to account or we'll all end up in warrens squabbling over who has the right to keep their back to the fence.

Also, there are ways to kick out tenants regardless of landlord tenant laws, such as to redevelop the property. AFAIK there's no law against redevelopment, and tenants cannot occupy a construction site, which means when the demolition crew starts work the tenant cannot legally occupy the site. Hiring Emmert International to jack up your house and transport it to another location is more expensive than filing an FED, but doing so will get the tenant out of the home.

"If you are land lord, and don't have a huge margin on your rentals. You are screwed."

I was screwed because I never had big margins. I didn't want to charge big margins, and needed to if I wasn't going to lose money, so I lost money. I didn't like the rental business. I always lost money even though none of those laws had affected me or my properties. I learned to move quickly when rents weren't paid. My rents were the lowest available, so if people didn't pay them it was because they couldn't. I offered people $100 cash if they'd move out by the end of the day, and they almost always took the $100 because they needed money, which is why they didn't pay the rent. It cost me a lot more than that to take somebody to court and evict them for non-payment, usually ~6 months not collecting rent on their unit, so it was a win/win - but I didn't make any money renting. Here in Oregon I think the law limits rents to <10% increase per year, but there are ways around that too, such as adding fees, evicting people and then raising rents for new tenants to whatever you want. It's kinda dangerous to be a long term tenant with low rent when rents have risen regionally.

"And, this entire mess of high house/rent prices was Commifornias fault in the first place by limiting house construction.

"This might sound good for the renters..."

No, that sounds awful for renters. I was in Austin, Texas in the mid-80s, and it was very overbuilt. That was great for renters. Apartment complexes would bend over backwards to get you to move in. I had access to a pool and a hot tub in a one bedroom luxury apartment, and they did my laundry for ~$250 a month.

"...govern-cement ends up owning all the housing, and decides who can live there."

They're doing this in lots of other ways too, like after the Parkland fires some years back, they didn't let people rebuild, just like in Lahaina, and in N. Carolina after the recent hurricane floods, they're also preventing people from rebuilding.
Eminent domain is crappy law, injustice in it's pure, concentrated form. UN commies have infiltrated US zoning commissions since the 1970s, trying to destroy the dream of home ownership in America, because they hate our freedoms. That's the whole purpose of the climate alarmism scam, to destroy the American dream of a single family home with a white picket fence, 2.5 kids, and a dog. They attack our homes and cars, because these are the most powerful freedoms in the world, and that's what they hate most. They hate happy homeowners, kids, and freedom to travel.

"The Amish do not leave their children to languish by themselves, they build a new house when a young couple gets married."

This is a good policy for communities that want to strengthen families. Moammar Gaddafi used to do this, and provide free electricity too, in Libya. That's why they killed him. The Amish better watch their backs. Nazi Germany used to provide low cost loans to young couples to purchase homes, and each of the first three children born forgave 1/4 of the loan, and the fourth paid it off. Hitler had to pretend to kill himself in a Berlin bunker and retire in ignominy to Argentina after that (according to the CIA). This is why Commies and Leftists like Newscum do everything in their power to make having a single family home impossible, why Commiefornia is the homeless capitol of the world.

"Single family houses are the worst plan for people."

What? No. They're awesome. People love living in them. That's why the Amish build them for young couples. Almost everyone I know lives in a single family home, and all of them prefer it to any other circumstance. There are people here that live in apartments, and they complain of lack of private space, of storage, of a yard to garden in, of the inconsiderate people they have to share common areas with. It is the American dream to get a good job, marry a beautiful girl or handsome guy, buy a house with a white picket fence, have some kids, and live happily ever after. People come from all over the world, daring crocodiles and cartel gangsters in the Darien gap, leaky overcrowded boats to cross the Caribbean, raggedly cut razor wire and fist bumps from Border Patrol agents, to get even a chance to live in an American single family home. I talk to people right here on Hive almost daily that dream of coming to America, driving a big automobile, and living in a single family home. People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for single family homes because they're just so damn awesome.

No one dreams of living alone in a commieblock with radiators that never get warm, screeching drunks barfing off the balcony above you, and yearly infestations of cockroaches, bedbugs, fleas, or some kind of vermin. Zillions of europoors live like that and dream of single family homes in the American midwest every day. I talk to them all the time, and they seethe with envy. The American single family home is the most felicitous lifestyle that has ever been invented. Why are you siding with the Commies and Leftists that are trying to take them away?

"The nuclear family is too small for the raising of children."

No. Now you're criticizing God, and how he worked out the SOP for making and raising kids. Are you insane? I homeschooled my sons as a single father working construction. My sons are great, universally admired by everyone that knows them, and they only had half a nuclear family. Deal with it.

Jim Kunstler is a Commie and he can go to hell. Cars are capital investments SCOTUS has ruled are private property, rolling castles that parking lot owners have no say about what is legal to do inside a private automobile. Cars are freedom. Buses are worse than commieblocks. Have you ever ridden public transportation? It's like hell. Raging, demented, demonic drunks lighting people on fire and burning them alive, threatening single moms with Michael Jackson impressions until they have to be strangled to death by American heroes. Cars are the second best thing about America the rest of the world admires and emulates. Anyone that hates single family homes and cars hates being alive, because those two things make being alive wonderful, even when there's traffic or property tax bills. Cars and single family homes aren't perfect, but they're better than anything else that tries to serve those purposes.

"In the future, we will have multi-family multi-generational housing."

We have that now. We have had it in the past, too. People scrimp and save to get out of commieblocks stuffed with other people you can't escape. Do you mean you want to mandate that no one can have a private home, and everyone has to live in 15 minute prisons, because no one can have private automobiles to drive anywhere in? If you do, you can go to hell too. You know where people want to live? In private homes, in nuclear families, they get to in a private automobile.

"...it is a waste of space..."

Don't have one then. Keep your hands off mine, Commie.

"There is huge tracts of land that people haven't set foot on for years."

I manage properties for several landowners, and just returned from negotiating with another who is offering very favorable terms. With the squatter scam coming on, they don't want to leave property vacant, and want to pay me to live there, all expenses paid. People complain about high rent, but if they were beneficent instead of liabilities they'd get paid to occupy properties to keep them in good repair and well maintained. I do. Problem is I can only live in one property at a time. There just isn't enough of me to go around.

"...we use "ownership" to keep people from having a place to live."

You were just explaining how gummint prevented people from owning places to live!

I am really baffled by your self-contradictory statements. Your nick on Hive indicates you're a home builder, yet you seem to have swallowed the Commie propaganda and advocate bugpods in commieblocks in 15 minute prisons where the captives can be conveniently surveilled 24/7, and locked down at the whim of evil overlords. Next thing you'll be advocating Sharia law and open borders for Israel. Please explain to me I have misunderstood, and you're actually not a Commie, leftist, freedom hater trying to force people on to public transportation that is a trip straight to hell no matter what the destination.

Thanks!