It has always been but people who vote (homeowners) have a vested interest to shape the narrative to be a demand-side problem.
The only loss when building more dense housing in urban areas is the existing owners whose views are blocked. Otherwise it seems to generally increase the tax base, support more businesses (when mixed-use housing is built), and increase renter mobility.
>> The only loss when building more dense housing in urban areas is the existing owners whose views are blocked.
It is a lot about more supply (and less price increase, or even decrease). Not about views being blocked. People who own homes feel the need to defend the price of their prized asset, for which they have used their life savings plus leverage. The system is designed to perpetuate itsself
To summarize, you argue that it's a supply-side problem and not a demand-side one.
That is not an accurate summary. Earlier...
Either we limit Canada's crazy-high immigration rate (1% of population every year) or we build more homes which is mostly gated by illiberal zoning laws passed by municipalities. But both of these policies are very popular so you'll be swimming upstream, politically
People love to talk about cutting back immigration and how it'll magically solve housing problems when it only slightly reduces the demand. You'll never see any kind of valuation thrown, just good fee fees about keeping our jobs.
The only loss when building more dense housing in urban areas is the existing owners whose views are blocked. Otherwise it seems to generally increase the tax base, support more businesses (when mixed-use housing is built), and increase renter mobility.