> Communal ownership almost always leads to neglect of the owned thing
I'm not really sure that you can make that kind of blanket statement. How ownership and care is organized, communal or not, has more to do with how properties end up.
> Likewise, your criticism of private ownership is too extreme. The vast majority of landlords take excellent care of their properties for example. Others take the right amount of care so that the place isn't great, but can be rented for less. Some landlords let a place decay until it's unsafe, but that's usually when incentives are set up that its in their best interests to do so. Such incentives are the opposite of private property rights and are usually in the form of rent controls, etc, where you can raise rent only when you drive tenants out, or its not profitable to use a property as housing and the only way to change its use is through its destruction.
This is really contrary to the history of housing property ownership in the US. Pre-housing reglations saw that properties used by the poorest members of society were not well taken care of and were often extremely dangerous due to lack of adequate plumbing, structural integrity, lighting, etc. Even today we have issues getting landlords to obey regulations and provide adequate housing as they are required to by law, although the state of housing will vary by locale. Also, landlords have no incentive to fix property issues until there is a legal threat that affects their ability to operate a property and even then getting action may be difficult, esp. if you are a poorer tenant and do not have the resources to take action against your landlord to suddenly move to a new place.
I'm not really sure that you can make that kind of blanket statement. How ownership and care is organized, communal or not, has more to do with how properties end up.
> Likewise, your criticism of private ownership is too extreme. The vast majority of landlords take excellent care of their properties for example. Others take the right amount of care so that the place isn't great, but can be rented for less. Some landlords let a place decay until it's unsafe, but that's usually when incentives are set up that its in their best interests to do so. Such incentives are the opposite of private property rights and are usually in the form of rent controls, etc, where you can raise rent only when you drive tenants out, or its not profitable to use a property as housing and the only way to change its use is through its destruction.
This is really contrary to the history of housing property ownership in the US. Pre-housing reglations saw that properties used by the poorest members of society were not well taken care of and were often extremely dangerous due to lack of adequate plumbing, structural integrity, lighting, etc. Even today we have issues getting landlords to obey regulations and provide adequate housing as they are required to by law, although the state of housing will vary by locale. Also, landlords have no incentive to fix property issues until there is a legal threat that affects their ability to operate a property and even then getting action may be difficult, esp. if you are a poorer tenant and do not have the resources to take action against your landlord to suddenly move to a new place.