land

in a system with no savings, no investments, and no debt, how do you allocate land?  who decides?  clearly lots of potential for corruption, people with power inevitably feel they are entitled to the best in life, which usually involves real estate with harbour views.

the basis of real estate in the ample system is that no one owns it, therefore everyone rents.  without trying to get all spiritual, even in capitalism, nobody really owns real estate.  we at best temporarily occupy it.  this contractual occupation may last a while, but eventually, systems collapse, revolutions occur, empires crumble, and species a little too intelligent for their own good self-destruct.  but the land will almost certainly remain, unaffected by the upheavals in the human domain.

renting in the ample system is all quite straight forward.  everyone is entitled to a minimum area in "good" habitable condition.  they can rent anywhere they want, any size they want, any quality and facility they want, but they have to pay the going market rate in the defacto currency 'hours'.  they then get reimbursed the cost of the minimum area in the worst suburb in close proximity.  the system would apply to everyone including politicians, auditors, secret police.

i expect that without investments, where everyone is restricted to just their salary, and due to full employment and useless jobs no longer being performed (finance industry, sales and marketing, the majority of the government, for example), there would be much less disparity in disposable income, and therefore much less disparity between 'ghettos' and affluent suburbs.  and it would be impossible to afford a huge mansion with these restrictions.

that is all fine for residential accommodation, how about commercial sector?  obviously still renting, still based on market rates, the business able to select the best location / facilities that match their needs.  in an ample system, a business doesn't necessarily need to make a profit, so you could argue that commercial rents would just skyrocket as businesses kept bidding up the prices in preferable locations.  but it would be constrained by the need to maximise efficiency, with the least efficient businesses being culled / losing their certification by the auditors.  i still need to properly define efficiency, but it could just be the ratio of costs to income as measured in the defacto currency of hours, and therefore paying high rent will reduce efficiency and make it relatively more difficult to avoid the cull.

the actual building of structures (and logically, the allocation of land prior to the start of building) would be similar to the building of infrastructure.  effectively first in first served, once the business has secured the resources to develop the land and has the necessary approvals.  i don't see any way around having a government agency  involved in planning land and issuing approvals, however definitely their power needs to be curtailed when compared to the current system.  if demand is there to develop land, while it shouldn't be a rubber stamp, a government department shouldn't be holding up development.  if they are, they need more resources / to make more efficient use of their existing resources, with the auditors providing the enforcement power to dump the management.  on consideration, it could be out-sourced - any job done by government has a private sector counter-part.  i guess it would just be the standards (what h&s standard is required etc) that would need to be driven by politicians / government, but even then it should be judged against other departments / other regions, and if it is slow or wasteful - the auditors step in.

these approvals would be in the nature of health & safety, environmental, not the desirability of the development.  that is no business of a government employee to dictate to the market.  keep in mind, businesses are very easy to start in an ample system - just demonstrated demand, and a business plan approved by an auditor.

so for example, if businesses keep having shortages of a key component needed to manufacture cars, the increased price would send the message that it would be easy to start an efficient business manufacturing these widgets, and this increased interest in widget making would send the message via increased rent that another widget factory would be good.  a builder (existing or a start-up, doesn't matter), observing the increasing rent, would decide developing another widget factory would be an efficient use of resources, and would put in an application for allocation of land.  the government department, as the plan shows adequate health & safety provisions and has environmental protection standards in line with other factories, approves it.  if there are competing applications for the same land, first in first served, so it would be incumbent upon government to expedite all applications, and incumbent on applicants to make sure the application is complete and comprehensive.

another important point - no one is making a profit as such, everyone is just working to attain their preferred level of affluence by working minimum hours plus extra if they want a better lifestyle.  the current system has so much legal angst because everyone is bitterly trying to capture profit for themselves.  if profit is no longer the goal, if the goal is now to satisfy demand / provide a service / improve society, there would be less legal battles, and less lawyers, both of which would be better for society.