======================
== CHANCE JIAJIE LI ==
======================

Reimagining Housing: Commons and Decentralization

Reading time: 15 minutes

Introduction

Housing is not merely a commodity or a speculative asset; it is a fundamental social good and a crucial determinant of health, community stability, and intergenerational well-being. In the United States, severe affordability crisis, persistent racial disparities, and the financialization of housing underscore the limitations of market-driven solutions and piecemeal policymaking. Although incremental reforms—such as inclusionary zoning, tenant protections, and housing vouchers—exist, their impact is often undermined by entrenched power imbalances, fragmented governance, and cultural narratives that prioritize private property rights over communal well-being. The scale and persistence of these challenges suggest the need for more comprehensive, systemic re-envisioning.

This blog post advances a vision in which housing is conceptualized as a guaranteed right, socially stewarded, and subject to meaningful democratic governance. Drawing on insights from political science, urban planning, and public policy, it engages with scholarship on participatory governance, deliberative democracy, co-governance, community-based planning, and Elinor Ostrom’s principles for managing common-pool resources. It also aligns with theories of local self-governance and policy experimentation, where new institutional frameworks can be tested and iterated over time. Within this intellectual landscape, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) emerge as potential digital infrastructures enabling more inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making.

I examine international models—such as Vienna’s robust social housing sector and the Netherlands’ nonprofit housing associations—along with the U.S.-based community land trusts (CLTs), limited-equity cooperatives, and resident-led management in places like East Harlem. These examples highlight the diverse institutional and cultural conditions under which more equitable housing systems can flourish. Finally, I consider practical steps, legal frameworks, and ethical safeguards to implement DAO-enabled community governance in the U.S., acknowledging the country’s decentralized governance, weaker social safety nets, and entrenched market ideologies. Throughout, I remain mindful of the complexities of technological idealism, recognizing that DAOs are tools to be carefully integrated into multifaceted political and regulatory environments rather than quick fixes.

Historical Context and Current Failures

The U.S. housing system’s inequities are deeply rooted in historical policies—such as redlining, exclusionary zoning, and discriminatory lending—that favored White, middle-class suburban homeowners while systematically marginalizing Black and other minority communities. These past injustices, reinforced by the postwar expansion of mortgage subsidies targeted primarily at White families and the lack of robust public housing support for communities of color, entrenched spatial segregation and limited opportunities for wealth-building.

Centralized, top-down decision-making often exacerbates these problems. The demolition of public housing in post-Katrina New Orleans without adequate resident input and the decades of neglect in the South Bronx exemplify how planning decisions can erode trust and fail to address fundamental affordability and equity issues. Contemporary crises—homelessness, displacement, rampant speculation—cannot be fully explained as “market failures” alone. They reflect deeper structural distortions, including the pervasive assumption that housing is an asset rather than a shared social foundation.

Recognizing these roots is essential. While the current paradigm seems entrenched, it is neither immutable nor predetermined. To break free from cyclical crises, I must question underlying assumptions about property rights, market primacy, and policymaking. Alternative models, if carefully adapted and supported, can challenge established frameworks and point toward more democratic, stable, and inclusive housing systems.

The Power of Imagination and the Limits of Technological Idealism

Walter Brueggemann emphasizes the importance of imagining new social contracts—an exercise that political theorists of deliberative democracy, participatory budgeting, and community engagement have long supported. Imagination enables us to move beyond incremental reforms toward more fundamental transformations. Yet imagination alone is insufficient. In the context of DAOs, technology does not inherently produce equitable outcomes; it must be embedded in institutional designs aligned with values of fairness, accountability, and inclusion.

DAOs, rooted in blockchain technology, promise decentralization, transparency, and tamper-proof decision-making processes. In theory, they could provide a digital infrastructure for collaborative governance aligned with Ostrom’s principles of collective resource management, acting as a “digital commons” tool. However, they also operate within regulatory, economic, and cultural landscapes that can hamper their effectiveness. Without robust policy support, digital literacy efforts, and safeguards against elite capture and token manipulation, DAO frameworks risk merely replicating existing inequalities in a new digital guise.

From a political science standpoint, DAOs might be seen as experimental institutions that facilitate local self-governance and policy learning, offering a platform for iterative adjustments. Yet their success depends on context: a DAO in a supportive legal environment with strong civil society actors may thrive, while one in a fragmented jurisdiction with limited resources could flounder. Proper calibration—through pilot projects, iterative refinement, and interdisciplinary oversight—ensures that technological interventions strengthen rather than undermine democratization and equity.

Comparative Lessons: Vienna, the Netherlands, and U.S. Resident Management

International models offer lessons on how housing can be treated as a stable social good. Vienna’s century-old social housing system, supported by a long-standing social-democratic tradition, robust public financing, and institutionalized tenant protections, has maintained affordability and quality over generations. The Netherlands’ nonprofit housing associations operate under a regulatory regime that tightly manages land use, ensures ongoing public oversight, and provides fiscal supports. These models benefit from cohesive political cultures that value collective welfare, stable legal frameworks that curb speculative pressures, and well-funded public institutions.

In contrast, the U.S. context is more fragmented. Local governments have significant autonomy, federal support is sporadic, and market-driven ideologies remain dominant. While directly transplanting the Vienna or Dutch models is unrealistic, adapting certain principles can inform U.S. policy. For instance, replicating Vienna’s success might require implementing supportive public policies analogous to Europe’s social safety nets—such as rental assistance tied to inflation, predictable public financing for affordable housing, or legal caps on rent increases. Without a strong welfare state or long-term governmental commitment, DAOs alone cannot achieve what stable public funding and cultural consensus have sustained abroad.

Domestic experiments, like CLTs and limited-equity cooperatives, show that long-term affordability and community stewardship are possible under U.S. conditions. East Harlem’s resident-managed developments indicate that empowering tenants can yield tangible improvements in safety, maintenance, and local cohesion. Scaling these models, however, demands careful legal and economic scaffolding: tax incentives to encourage nonprofit ownership, municipal financing tools that lower borrowing costs, inclusionary zoning reforms, and technical assistance for community organizations. A DAO framework might enhance these efforts by providing transparent, accountable decision-making platforms. Yet, DAO implementation must be complemented by policies addressing America’s weaker social safety nets—such as local rent stabilization measures, Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) enhancements, or direct housing subsidies—to ensure that community-led governance is not undermined by broader systemic inequities.

Reimagining Housing Systems: From Centralization to Community Control

Political theorists and urban planners have long argued that devolving authority to local actors can improve responsiveness and equity. Ostrom’s analysis of common-pool resource governance shows that local communities, given the right institutional frameworks, can manage shared resources sustainably. Similarly, theories of co-governance and participatory budgeting suggest that involving residents in decision-making leads to more equitable outcomes. DAOs may translate these principles into digital platforms, enabling continuous feedback loops, transparent auditing of funds, and inclusive proposal-making processes.

However, “community control” requires careful balancing. Without safeguards, decentralization can devolve into local oligarchies or be captured by more powerful interests. DAO-based governance can formalize trust through immutable smart contracts, but trustworthiness also depends on aligning incentive structures, creating enforceable rules, and ensuring ongoing oversight. Combining DAO technology with established community land trusts or limited-equity co-ops might yield hybrid institutions that harness both technological innovation and time-tested mutual aid principles.

Clarifying Key Concepts: Community DAO Governance

A Community DAO’s legitimacy hinges on inclusive membership criteria, equitable tokenomics, anti-manipulation safeguards, and legal alignment. Key design questions include:

  • Defining Community Membership: Beyond tenants, should membership include local workers, nonprofits, small businesses, or even future residents awaiting housing opportunities? One might employ periodic membership reviews, ensuring that newcomers are integrated fairly, while long-term residents maintain a stable voice.
  • Token Distribution and Voting Rights: Inspired by stakeholder analysis and Gaventa’s “power cube,” token allocation can prioritize historically marginalized groups—e.g., awarding greater voting weight to lower-income households or long-term residents. To prevent token-hoarding by wealthier actors, one might impose caps on the number of tokens any entity can hold, periodically reset voting rights (requiring participation for renewal), or implement diminishing returns on large holdings. Additionally, supermajority requirements for critical decisions (e.g., substantial rent changes, sale of assets) can preserve stability.
  • Anti-Manipulation Measures: Anti-collusion strategies could include rotating oversight committees composed of randomly selected residents, third-party audits of smart contract code, algorithmic detection of unusual voting patterns, and external ombuds services. Implementing time delays on major decisions (e.g., a “cooling-off” period before proposals take effect) can mitigate rushed, manipulated votes.
  • Legal Integration and Dispute Resolution: DAOs must comply with fair housing laws, anti-discrimination statutes, and local zoning regulations. Including “legal escape hatches” allows off-chain arbitration or appeals to municipal authorities if on-chain decisions violate statutory protections. Regulatory guidance at state or municipal levels could define the legal standing of DAO votes, while a joint governance board—comprising public agencies, community representatives, legal scholars, and civic technologists—could regularly review the DAO’s performance and recommend reforms.

From Theory to Practice: Policy Tools and Implementation Pathways

Translating DAO-driven visions into policy requires incremental, evidence-based experimentation. Policymakers could initiate small-scale pilots in neighborhoods with existing civic infrastructure or CLTs. A 3-5 year trial might set concrete key performance indicators (KPIs)—for instance, increasing resident voting participation from 10% to 30%, reducing unresolved maintenance requests by 20%, or stabilizing rents below a certain percentage of median income. Regular surveys could measure trust, perceived fairness, and satisfaction.

Such pilots demand a supportive ecosystem. Municipal governments might offer legal templates recognizing DAO decisions as advisory inputs into local housing authorities. Over time, if these DAOs prove effective, cities could grant them more formal authority—contingent on compliance with fair housing standards and success in meeting KPIs. To facilitate broader adoption, policymakers could develop a “policy toolkit” detailing best practices: standardized smart contract templates vetted for fairness and anti-discrimination safeguards, model by-laws for token distribution, dispute resolution protocols, and guidelines for layering DAO governance atop existing affordable housing programs.

Tax incentives, CRA enhancements, and grants for digital infrastructure could encourage private developers and philanthropic organizations to invest in DAO-governed housing. Nonprofits, universities, and think tanks could provide digital literacy training, interface design, and capacity-building workshops, ensuring that residents have the skills to participate meaningfully. Should a pilot fail—due to low participation, token manipulation, or legal challenges—its lessons would inform the next iteration. This iterative policy experimentation aligns with theories of policy learning and adaptive governance, wherein institutional designs evolve through trial, evaluation, and revision.

Balancing Values: Equity, Justice, and Conflict Resolution

No governance model eliminates conflict. Disagreements over resource allocation, improvements, or rent-setting are inevitable. Drawing on deliberative democracy and participatory planning frameworks, DAO governance can incorporate multi-round consultations and moderated forums where residents deliberate before voting. Such forums—conducted online or in hybrid formats—could ensure that voters have the information and time to consider proposals, reducing impulsive or biased decision-making.

Additionally, neutral arbitrators—drawn from community organizations, academic institutions, or professional mediation services—could handle unresolved disputes. These arbitrators might operate under guidelines resembling dispute-resolution models from existing housing co-ops or neighborhood councils. Over time, stable conflict resolution mechanisms can strengthen trust and social capital, reinforcing the sense that housing governance is a collective endeavor rather than a zero-sum competition.

Envisioning Everyday Life in the Future of Housing

In a mid-sized U.S. city like Cambridge, Massachusetts—known for its inclusionary housing policies—one can imagine an incremental transition. Initially, a single building or cluster of affordable units adopts a DAO platform. Residents propose infrastructure upgrades, energy-efficiency retrofits, or cultural events through a user-friendly portal. Deliberation periods, anchored in participatory planning theory, allow neighbors to exchange views, followed by secure, token-weighted votes recorded on the blockchain.

Smart contracts automatically allocate funds once a proposal passes, streamlining project implementation and reducing bureaucratic overhead. Over time, as trust and digital literacy grow, residents might co-create long-term development plans, addressing climate resilience, job training initiatives, or early-childhood education programs. Local civil society groups and neighborhood associations could plug into the DAO, ensuring that the community’s evolving needs continuously shape decision-making.

This vision depends on cultural shifts as much as technology. DAO governance would require robust internet access, ongoing training sessions (offered by local libraries, NGOs, and universities), and stable regulatory frameworks. With each successful project, confidence in collective decision-making grows. Over decades, as housing remains permanently affordable, intergenerational ties strengthen, and social capital accumulates, neighborhoods could evolve into more cohesive and resilient communities.

Challenges, Limitations, and Future Research

Significant challenges persist. Regulatory uncertainty remains a major barrier. Without legislative clarity on the legal standing of DAO decisions, their influence may remain informal. Crafting new statutes or municipal ordinances to recognize DAO governance inputs, while preserving essential tenant protections and fair housing laws, will require political negotiation and legislative creativity.

Digital divides also pose risks. Technological sophistication cannot exclude lower-income or elderly residents. Public investments in broadband infrastructure, digital skills workshops, and user-friendly DAO interfaces must accompany these experiments. Failure to address these divides risks turning a well-intentioned solution into another mechanism favoring the digitally empowered.

Equitable token distribution and anti-manipulation safeguards must be continually tested. Could token rights expire if unused, ensuring that inactive members do not skew decision-making? Might third-party code audits occur annually to prevent hidden backdoors in smart contracts? Periodic algorithmic reviews could detect suspicious voting patterns and trigger human oversight committees. Developing a routine audit and compliance schedule—where technologists, legal experts, and community representatives collectively review the system—would institutionalize checks and balances.

Long-term sustainability demands adaptive governance. As neighborhoods evolve, smart contracts and governance rules must be updated. This can be facilitated by establishing a permanent DAO Policy Advisory Committee composed of stakeholders from multiple sectors: municipal planners, political scientists, economists, technologists, community organizers, and housing advocates. Meeting regularly, this committee could assess ongoing performance, recommend policy adjustments, and ensure that the DAO remains aligned with evolving legal and social norms.

Future research should be both empirical and comparative. Ethnographic studies could examine how residents experience DAO governance, while surveys and interviews might gauge shifts in trust, empowerment, and fairness perceptions. Quantitative analysis could assess whether DAO-enabled communities see improved affordability, reduced turnover, or better maintenance outcomes. Comparative research across cities, states, and even countries could reveal which legal frameworks, cultural conditions, or incentive structures best enable DAOs to thrive. Such research would transform these policy experiments into valuable lessons for future reforms, continually refining the intersection of technology, governance, and housing equity.

Conclusion

Reimagining housing equity in the United States involves challenging ingrained assumptions about property, value, and governance. While lessons from Vienna’s social housing, the Netherlands’ nonprofit associations, East Harlem’s resident management, and even China’s large-scale interventions inspire new possibilities, these models emerged within distinct historical, cultural, and political-economic contexts. Transplanting them requires careful adaptation—crafting supportive policies, stable financing, legal protections, and participatory mechanisms that fit the U.S. governance landscape.

DAO-enabled community governance is not a silver bullet. Instead, it should be viewed as a promising, if incremental, step toward embedding democratic decision-making within the housing sector. By explicitly connecting DAO governance with theoretical frameworks in deliberative democracy, co-governance, local self-governance, and Ostrom’s communal resource management, I situate this approach within a rich intellectual tradition. By considering pragmatic details—token distribution rules, anti-collusion mechanisms, legal integration, and conflict resolution processes—I translate abstract ideals into institutional forms.

The path forward requires interdisciplinary collaboration: planners designing urban policies that recognize DAO inputs, political scientists analyzing the distributional impacts of tokenomics, technologists refining smart contracts, lawyers clarifying DAO legality, and community organizers ensuring resident voices guide these transformations. If executed thoughtfully, this combination of visionary imagination, policy learning, and adaptive institutional design can move beyond incremental fixes. It can contribute to a future where housing is not a volatile asset but a stable, dignified foundation for human flourishing—shaped by the collective agency, shared values, and active participation of the communities it serves.

References