[esoterica]

> the local property owners get higher prices which is a win

Preventing people from being able to afford a place to live so entrenched interests can accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment appreciation is not a “win”.

Even if you think that the interests of long term “locals” should be privileged (which I disagree with, all men are created equal yada yada), rising property prices don’t benefit all locals, just “local property owners”, as you’ve observed. Local renters and even the kids of local homeowners who eventually want to enter the property market themselves are hurt by constrained supply.

[rdiddly]

In other words it's a win for the winners, just like capitalism as usual. I can't fix capitalism. The people making these laws are the same ones benefiting, was my point. They win because they hold all the cards. We can talk all day about whether they should win. On the "they shouldn't" side, you can make a "free enterprise" argument like this article seems to, or an "equity" argument like you seem to be doing. They're both sound arguments, and meanwhile contrariwise I also buy the argument that being in a place should afford you some amount of self-determination. There's no clear right answer and no moral high ground, just different groups of people fighting over who gets the resources... again sort of "as usual."

[CountSessine]

What on earth does gaming the housing market through government regulations have to do with “free enterprise”? Using regulations to distort markets is the very opposite of free enterprise.

[rdiddly]

You answered your own question; they're related by opposition. As I said.

[CountSessine]

Your answer suggested that you consider restrictive land zoning regulations to be consistent with free enterprise and efficient pricing, which of course it is not.