[Tiktaalik]

> Though real estate investment groups are often blamed for the lack of affordable housing, the real problem is restrictive building laws — especially in desirable, liberal, and highly regulated cities.

> The above-listed places are cheap because they have lots of land and few regulations...

Being clear here there's a difference between what "building more housing" means in SF, Seattle etc, that is, densifying existing detached homes and creating a compact city, and what is means in Vegas, Phoenix and other places, which is unsustainable, endless, automobile dependent sprawl. The former a much more politically challenging thing as it means pushing back against the "American Dream" of a detached home and white picket fence. Adding yet another house on the edge is of course quite easy.

This sprawl is part of what is driving the doom of cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix. Woefully inefficient sprawl, absurdly large highways and countless CO2 emitting cars.

I'm sure electric cars will help, but it's gonna be a tough transition to there and the energy needs will be incredible. What really needs to happen is to stop sprawling and rebuild these cities, but who knows if the genie can be put back into the bottle there.

[void_mint]

"Building more housing" in SF, Seattle, etc means building apartment complexes whose cost is restrictive enough such that only those that aren't experiencing a housing crisis can afford them.

[Tiktaalik]

Yes, and having the option to rent those nice brand new apartments means the wealthy are a lot less likely to compete with the less wealthy over the same shitty 40 year old apartments. More vacancy is a big win for someone who can only afford a 40 year old apartment.

[AnimalMuppet]

"Desirable" and "highly regulated" are a contradiction for a fair number of people...