[Sebb767]

Not the OP, but the ones that come immediately to mind is that a) capping the population will reduce the market and therefore increase prices and b) if you start limiting the people, the ones remaining will most likely be the rich [0] one way or another, making the market even more competitive.

[0] Unless the place is not actually worth striving to live in, but in that case you probably don't have a rent price problem.

[lightgreen]

> reduce the market and therefore increase prices

Why is that a problem?

> if you start limiting the people, the ones remaining will most likely be the rich

Why is that a problem?

[dghlsakjg]

> Why is that a problem?

Shelter is one of the few goods which a society necessarily needs. The alternatives (being homeless) are unacceptable. People give up food, electricity and healthcare before they give up shelter.

It's fine at a micro scale (oceanfront is expensive, but a few blocks away is affordable), but causes incredible problems at a macro scale as the bay area demonstrates (people not able to live within 50+ miles of their support networks). It is VERY hard to uproot an entire life and move to an area where cost of living is lower, especially when you are poor. People in poverty form informal local support networks (neighbors watching kids, friends that can loan you $5 to top up your phone), making it that much harder to move to a lower cost area.

[TulliusCicero]

> Why is that a problem?

This is like asking why high prices for food or health care are problems.

It's a necessity of life, man. Do we really need to explain why basic necessities being very expensive is bad?

[Sebb767]

> Why is that a problem?

The grand-grandparent stated:

> I enjoyed challenging my friends on what they would do to make the city more affordable.

So, when the solution results in increased pricing, his challenge was inherently failed.

[milkytron]

> to make the city more affordable

It doesn't achieve the goal, in fact further distances it.