No, it would BE BOUGHT by government at fair price (they know the fair price, just look your houses tax bill)

Or built by them.

And then rented out with a certain maximum rental price per Sq Mt like 10$ so 50sq m (500sq ft) = 500$/month

Most importantly, they would be obliged to make it Energy efficient by their contract with the state so much lower electric and heating bill, maybe even topped off with solar, would be small percentage of a new building but cut costs for actual people.

Not saying it's perfect in Holland (they have shortages because no new land available to build new social housing projects), but it sure works!

I kept it deliberately vague, but the main idea is democracy and public accountability, and that we need to take certain things out of corporate hands. Because it only optimizes for profit and not for social benefit or the nation's benefit. Basically all the fundamental needs of the people need to become a kind of guaranteed basic right - food water shelter education and communication. And there could be multiple different models.

There are widespread and established neoliberal myths now that only "private" institutions can work efficiently and unbiased. Definitely based on Thatcher, Reagan, Kohl, and then perpetrated by the "third way" leftists that declared democracy as an inefficient tool to order society.

But you can establish institutions with more useful motivations and that are more intelligent to withstand things like shortages. With things like healthcare you actually do want less efficiency, e.g. in a pandemic.

Right now it seems unthinkable, but with the climate and other crisis looming it might become feasible. At least if we have the actual ideology "at the ready".

State owned public housing has worked all around the world. Council houses in the UK for example looked good and helped lots of people get houses, and didn't really get associated with poor people until Thatcher and her shitty policies. In Finland, like a third of their housing is public housing and they've managed to essentially eliminate homelessness this way.

Not exactly. Saying something cannot work can be disproven by showing a single example of it working. There are plenty.

What I am trying to say is that housing should not be run for the sole pursuit of profit. People should own their own house, should own and manage an apartment block collectively, or have institutions that "own" and manage housing not for profit but for social and global benefit. But Individuals or corporations shouldn't be allowed to own other peoples houses for profit. Or land for that matter. At least not as "capital".

So you can "own" your own house and keep it for your children but you're more like a steward, you can't rent it out or own the housing of lots of people. It would cease to become a commodity and be much cheaper then.

That's very radical and faces many potential problems but you can't say it's erroneous proposition. What you'd need are scientific studies that compare different models in different countries and account for all the variables including political corruption to sabotage public housing. And what benefits can be shown.

I don't propose state socialism because that kind of total concentration of all economic power was shown to be very corrupt. But we need better models because right now wealth inequality is so vast than most housing is being bought off and concentrated for the 0.1% - which is very similar to state socialism too!