The good news is that the solutions we need to do it are already here, they’re just not very well distributed yet.

The atlas sounds like a good idea, but the bias in favor of these "solutions" is inconsistent with it. Shouldn't the Atlas be data from which we can infer what works where and for whom? What scales? What benefits, if any, arise from different forms of ownership prevailing in different places? Maybe the fee simple absolute is the best possible form of ownership and all we need to do is fiddle with zoning so that too much land isn't made unavailable for housing. Maybe not.

But why assume, for example, that the Community Land Trust is a better "solution" than something less Big Brotherish? CLTs have their pluses and minuses, most notably, I would think, the cap on appreciation, which impedes social mobility. If your equity has not increased in value as much as the prices of surrounding fee simple properties, how do you move out of your CLT home? I'm not here to dump on the idea, just to argue that the creators of the Atlas should be agnostic on what will eventually be inferred from the data it collects.