[throwaway2048]

because its often a canard in many areas for "no new development so we can artifically maintain a shortage, and keep our property values sky high".

Sorry but your property values and neighbourhood appearance shouldnt be winning out against people literally being unable to live inside cities because they have comitted the crime of being too poor.

[jdmichal]

> Sorry but your property values and neighbourhood appearance shouldnt be winning out against people literally being unable to live inside cities because they have comitted the crime of being too poor.

I think there's a lot of secondary effects tied up in your statement that would not necessarily unravel the way you would wish them to. Ad absurdum, I don't see how it results in anything other than assigned, identical housing.

Because, even at a fundamental level, someone will always be willing to pay for something more than the bare minimum. And as long as that is true, there will be stratification. And that stratification will price individuals out of an area.

[throwaway2048]

You are the one reducing it to an absurdity here, but the reality of the situation is people below the 90%th income percentile are being priced out of cities entirely, not just select areas, not just "historical" areas, entire metropolitan regions.

This needs to change, and I'm sorry if it means some property owners get huffy about actual affordable housing getting constructed.