[hkmurakami]

>However, cities are barely approving residential zoning and this artificial distortion is amplifying the homeless problem.

Aren't "cities" just manifestations of players within the greater market system coming together to assert their interests and preferences?

Or is this an example of how a group can act to block the proper functioning of a market, kind of like a cartel?

[superuser2]

Cities (and countries) are democratic communities that can choose to deploy markets if and to the extent that they are useful for some resource allocation problems. And they are quite useful. But communities come first; when the market does something that opposes its values, the community can and should override it. The difference between regulation and a cartel is that regulations pervert the market for public gain at private expense and cartels are the other way 'round.

[Decade]

The problem with that theory is voter turnout.

In San Francisco, the latest new regulation against housing was passed by a simple majority of the vote, with 8.5% of San Francisco residents voting in favor. In the latest election, the moderate District 3 supervisor was replaced by a rabid anti-growth supervisor with the approval of 12% of the district’s residents.

This is actually sort of by design. Americans in general are pathetic (I do not mean apathetic) about their civic responsibilities, but aggressive home ownership policies were pushed partly to get people more involved in politics. Turns out that this promotes narrow-minded personal interest rather than the good of society.