resolving the housing crisis requires radical thought. not more of the same.

Back in November, we discussed rent control and rent stabilization. These terms—along with “rent freezes,” which typically refer to rent remaining the same due to tax abatements—are frequently used by mainstream media and elected officials. While they’re often presented as new ideas, many of them are repackaged versions of housing solutions proposed years ago.

These policies are generally well-intentioned, and I strongly support protections like maintaining affordable rent for senior citizens. However, these measures might have been more effective if they had been implemented consistently and with the understanding that they would need to evolve as economic conditions changed. They also often fail to account for the landlord’s perspective—an essential piece if we want solutions that are sustainable and truly holistic.

We are in a very different era now.

Rental rates continue to rise while unemployment does the same. Utility costs are steadily increasing across the country, putting even more pressure on tenants and owners. At the same time, qualifying for an apartment has become unrealistic for many people—especially those who are already renting. Third-party guarantor companies profit from tenants who are told they “don’t qualify,” without extra insurance, extracting fees from people who cannot afford to give away any more of their income.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I do know this: it’s time to think outside the box.

Here are some ideas worth considering:

Keep property taxes low—or eliminate them entirely—for landlords who provide genuinely affordable housing.

In an ideal scenario, individuals would own their land and homes outright, without the burden of ongoing property taxes. Until that reality exists, taxes must remain low for landlords who provide genuinely affordable housing—especially since property taxes are often cited as the primary justification for raising rents. An even stronger incentive would be allowing landlords to operate tax-free when they offer housing that is both affordable and habitable. If affordability is the goal, the tax structure should actively reward it.

Allow higher security deposits in exchange for significantly lower or more affordable monthly rent.

Across many states, third-party guarantor companies collect the equivalent of one month’s rent from tenants who fail to meet income or credit requirements. Unlike traditional security deposits, this money is never returned to the tenant and cannot be applied during periods of hardship. Instead, it is paid out only to property management in the event of a non-payment eviction.A more equitable alternative would be allowing higher security deposits in exchange for lower monthly rent. Landlords would gain peace of mind knowing funds are already in hand if needed, while tenants would be incentivized to maintain the apartment in order to receive their deposit back. This approach keeps money within the tenant–landlord relationship rather than diverting it to predatory third-party services.

Tie rent to income.

Rent should be capped at a defined percentage of a household’s income to ensure long-term affordability. Safeguards would need to exist to ensure adequate space for household size, potentially tied to tax incentives or zoning allowances. While imperfect, this approach aligns housing costs with economic reality rather than forcing tenants to stretch beyond their means.

Set a cap on how much profit a landlord can collect based on the condition and upkeep of the home.

Rental profit could be directly tied to the quality and maintenance of the unit. Well-maintained, upgraded, and safe housing could justify higher returns, while neglected properties would be subject to stricter caps. This creates a financial incentive for landlords to invest in their properties rather than extract maximum profit at minimum cost.

Have tenants share common maintenance costs.

For multi-unit buildings, clearly defined and transparent shared maintenance costs could foster accountability on both sides. When structured fairly, this model can reduce surprise rent hikes while encouraging collective care of shared spaces.

Reform rent qualification standards so they reflect real-world affordability—not arbitrary income multiples.

Requiring tenants to earn three or four times the rent no longer reflects economic reality. Qualification standards should consider consistent payment history, actual cost of living, upkeep exchange, and regional wage data rather than relying on outdated formulas that exclude people who are already successfully paying rent.

If we keep relying on the same solutions, we’ll keep getting the same results—and that’s a cycle I’m ready to step out of. The housing crisis isn’t looming anymore; it’s already here, and it’s edging closer to a breaking point. Now feels like the moment to pause, reassess, and seriously rethink how we approach housing. These ideas aren’t meant to be definitive answers, but starting points—ways to challenge what we’ve accepted as “normal” for far too long.

I’m curious what you think. What would you change, add, or question?