Neither does the "Occupier" have any "ownership" - he has a right of occupation (whatever that means). There could easily be many different "Occupiers" eg fishing rights, farming rights, and so on.
So for the sake of argument if it costs £100,000 to buy the land and build the property, then we go to the market and see what investors are looking for in returns from what would become a UK "Property Pool" as more properties joined the scheme. This rate will be based upon what an investor thinks is an acceptable rate of return on a rock solid (property based) and index-linked return.
Maybe 3 or 4% would be acceptable for an index-linked return that would be instantly accessible. It could even run down to 2% or less (UK government index linked gilts were issued at 2% and were sold down to 0.4% at one time, dunno what they are trading at now).
The location of the property is entirely irrelevant, since this is a pool of the Capital invested IN the land. The location value of the land - which changes over time - and how this fits in with the financing of local communities, is a separate subject. I see "Community Partnerships" in due course replacing/becoming local government.
2. Good point. Except that it would be quite in order for a land owner to agree to transfer his land into trust in return for an agreed valuation based upon (say) 20% of the property rentals flowing from the developed property.
Equally, the soon-to-be Occupier might put in sweat equity (eg digging foundations - which used to be mandatory in Norway if you wanted funding from the State housing bank) - and a builder, plus all the other service providers involved, would be given the option of exchanging their "costs" for an "equity share". Anything more than their costs (ie a profit margin) they would be expected to invest, so they have an interest in doing a good job.
In other words, it is only necessary to obtain pre-existing "money" insofar as you need to pay "external" costs. The land investor is key: and here it is possible to imagine that the community which grants the right to build residential property could become an "investor" too, to a significant degree, sharing the gains with the land owner.
3. In this model, "default" relates to the inability to pay rent, and that would of course result in repossession (if equity has been exhausted), and a new Occupier. There is no default otherwise, and an Occupier can take a payment holiday anytime he wishes, provided he has an investment in the property Pool to his name (ie paid rentals ahead of time).
There can be no credit default because this is not credit. If you want your money out, simply find a buyer for your generic UK property pool units. Plenty of investment institutions making markets there, I would think.
If you want to invest longer term then do so, in something else.
Equally the right of occupation has no time element. It's merely a question of whether or not you want to live there, and whether or not you can afford the Capital rental involved (and any community land related charges).
In fact I see a Community land related charge (a location rental) as being a potentially powerful tool in redressing the balance over time between the haves and have nots.
But that's another story.
Land Partnerships would be just as simple as now - otherwise they will not work, for sure.
Do you call the existing system of buying and selling property simple?
In this model, property is never bought and sold again, although occupiers, investors and maybe managers change over time.
Management issues would be colectively decided insofar as they need to be (eg condo's and cooperatives) with managers only if necessary.
Investors have no say in matters that concern occupiers, only in terms of matters that concern them (eg the "value" of new investment in money or money's worth) "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Banks provide a service. You seem to believe with more information people can do without the packaging and management of differing time horizons. I say that is damn near impossible for ordinary folks as opposed to the large corporations and pension funds you use in your examples. Sure, giant pools of capital can take very long views and be patient. But most ordinary folks cant. Their savings make up a large chunk of the money in the system.
you make many blithe assumptions that people can easily find buyers to take them out of an investment that they've changed their mind about. Pretty easy with simple instruments but a right to a stream of cash from a building lease with the lessor having the right to buy in on some complicated formula? Again, good luck finding a market for this. Looks like a Rube Goldberg mousetrap to me.
