[ThrustVectoring]

It's pretty straighforward economics. Local landowners get to make the laws, and they have a vested interest in their houses being expensive. Sure, it means more mortgage debt and slower economic growth as cost-of-living strangles marginal businesses, but that's a cost that other people have to pay later. So, in typical Boomer fashion - fuck you, I got mine, have fun being up to your eyeballs in debt to us.

[anthonybullard]

You got it. I was asking a leading question. What's needed is a (political) counter weight to that. Maybe as millennials get more squeezed by this, they'll become more politically active locally and push for reforms to this. But I'm a little depressed because they'll probably just reach for the same non-solutions or current political class reach for, like rent control and low income inclusion requirements.

[ThrustVectoring]

Local activity isn't helpful, because the incentives work out much better for rent control and low income inclusion. Actually lifting the building controls that cause the shortage means pissing off the incumbent neighbors at your expense, for the benefit of people who either commute in or will move to your area in the future.

Current land-use regulation is in this really bad area, where the governing entities responsible are large enough to seek rents and small enough to avoid being responsible for their negative externalities.