Exactly. You can't just look at two data points in a system with hundreds of confounding variables, many of them unquantifiable and say "aha! This simple linear equation of supply and demand, that they teach in middle school, is correct!"

That's not science, it's dogmatism

People want to blame the 1% for massive wealth ineqality, but when it comes to unaffordable housing, a basic necessity of life, the villain is actually about 30% of the population that is rich enough to own homes, act like rentiers, and block access to neighborhoods and opportunities.

The greatest inequality difference is that between those with housing assets and those without. Yes the 1% are a problem but they are not the reason that young people can no longer afford housing without generational wealth, that's all due to the seemingly normal guy that's enforcing a class system based on home ownership versus non-ownership.

> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail.

In a system where those with more capitol have more power, homeowners are the powers that be. They're more likely to vote and have more money for discretionary spending - like donating to politicians.

> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments

Which is self interested. The paradox is renters being turned against their own interests by large landlords pitching anti-gentrification.

Don’t know why this is being downvoted, that’s exactly right. One needs only to attend a local city meeting about any smallest step towards more development to see how the voters think.

It is more complicated than that. A few years back when my youngest entered 1st grade, I attended some meetings where the superintendent talked about school expansions in the pipeline due to confirmed property development projects.

Namely, when new housing is added, there are infrastructure considerations and corresponding expenses that translate to higher taxes. Civil planners have formulas for how much the student population will grow based on the housing density/type.

Schools built on parcels based on 1970's population now have to expand to fit more students or the township has to find and acquire new land to build a new school.

That requires raising taxes for bonds. A new school is several million dollars and then hiring staff. NJ has a legal limit of 25:1 in elementary. Add 100 students and you add at least 4 teachers that have to be supported by taxpayers. Expand the lunchroom, build a new gym, purchase new computers, all the ways up the chain for the next 12 years.

If you ever look at your municipal tax bill, you will find that education is going to be the biggest expense by far.

On top of that, roads may need to be widened. New roads have to be built and maintained. Municipal staff may need to increase.

Some services may actually benefit from economies of scale (waste collection). Most will not.

Imagine you bought a house in 1970 (i.e. my development) and you were paying $1000 annual property taxes. Now your property taxes are $12000 because of the increased spend on infrastructure and increased assessed value. You're a retiree and you've paid taxes for 2 or 3 generations of students. You live on a fixed income and your property taxes are a higher and higher proportion of your income. What do you do? Mortgage the house to pay taxes to fund more growth?

The problem is exacerbated because obviously people want to go where the good schools are, where it's low crime, good infra, easy access to transportation. That drives demand and puts pressure on services while also raising taxes to pay to fund municipal bonds for growth.

End of the day, my personal belief is that housing is a right. But I can also see why middle class folks, retirees end up pushing back when they get the bill in the form of increased property taxes. I've lived in my house 10 years now and my taxes have gone up ~$3500 in that time. Every school in the township had to expand to meet population growth with the additional units. Sure, my home value went up as well, but I can't cash that out. I can't imagine how it feels for retirees that are living in a family home here.

It's just as much "change is scary" and "I like this as it is." It's a very human reaction.

They are the ones who show up at local political fundraising galas and constantly report local issues influencing municipal/state priorities.

Although it's not just NIMBY. There's a million rules about building housing and developing land from zoning, environmental, indigenous, or social ends. Which are arguably luxury self-benefiting priorities for people who already own houses. Plus all the activists who think the government can both make development extremely expensive via endless rules while affording to fund mass government housing at the same time.

[dead]

Nobody lives there anymore, it's too expensive. /s

> everyone in the transaction wins

Nobody ever thinks of the poor banks!

Their land, labor, and material costs aren’t trivial. If thy were pulling a 10-20% margin before, how will increasing volume (which increases costs) make it up?

It’s not a free market construction issue at all, it’s a regulatory zoning and permitting issue.

Read the article and the peer comments here; Austin’s boom came about from reducing regulatory constraints.

Nationally remove the artificial restrictions and the supply side will fix itself.

Public housing projects were and sort of still are a thing. Glass Amendment limits the number of units that can be produced but most areas are well below those limits and the larger issue is that there's no budget or political willpower for social housing projects right now.

Maybe? Obviously boom bust cycles that come from a free market are not very efficient.

We already have that. They're called "housing projects".

Not so much any longer. The sales tap really turned off a while back and prices have been dropping a while here in Austin.