Cities in Europe consist of mix of communal housing (rental apartments built with support from government) and private. Some of the cities are top rated in quality of living. Hardly a prison. So I don't know where you got such idea?

What is the legal ownership model of this communal housing? You say they are rentals which means money is exchanged for the right to live there. How does this work without money?

Someone wants to abolish money?

Do you take the argument to be that there is a single owner of housing to which everyone pays rent then? The reasons why that would be worse should be plainly obvious.

No. There is no single owner. Whoever wants to own their property, can buy/build one, there are enough of these for sale. I don't know of any case where municipality building houses (or another infrastructure like broadband) would make the situation worse for everyone.

So you meant we keep the current system but have expanded public housing? That’s not really decommodified though which is the original quote.

You sounded like you are completely against any form of communal/public housing.

We differ, and that’s okay. I’ve lived in something like eight or nine houses as a dependent and a similar number as an adult, and I don’t consider it housing stress relative to the trauma of what some of my high school students experienced. Good games have fitting rules. This current ownership system is a framework of rules we generally accept. I’d be willing to trade some control for security, so long as I don’t have to maintain a lawn and can instead plant prairie/meadow/woods if space exists. For example. I prefer to minimize traumatic events for as many as possible, especially in early life. What infrastructure enables a home that is completely in your control?

It’s a noble thing to help others escape from poverty and abuse but you should do so without imposing on others. The option to buck the trend and plant a more ecologically friendly yard is precisely the type of thing that private property allows to flourish where regulation or communal ownership would require herculean feats of bureaucratic rangling. Same goes for rooftop solar, choosing to buy an electric car, or growing your own food in your back yard. I acknowledge that some people do not have the capacity or desire to manage their own homes or property, I’m all for there being many options. People should be allowed to experiment with different ownership or rental accommodations many of which would probably ease the housing burden. Housing speculation also needs to end since it greatly distorts the market. There is a lot that should be changed I just don’t think it should be done through further regulation or some form of communal ownership.

Decommodification does not imply centralization, nor does it mean losing ownership of your housing. Commons have been used by people for a long time before the idea of housing markets or central control came along. Most often when I see the idea floated around w/ regards to housing it links ownership with use - if you live at your house, you have control over it. But noone can say "I control the home where someone else lives, because I have a paper that says so."

Sounds like the concept of squatter’s rights. How do I prevent others from “using” my property and preventing or impinging on my use of it? What happens if I build a home and go on vacation only to come back and find someone living in it? Why would anyone have incentive to invest their time into new construction? Would people bother to maintain the property they are using or would they just pack up and leave once they had sufficiently trashed it? How does this use concept apply to food as mentioned in the quote? Private property solves all of these so any alternative must also provide workable solutions.