[deepthunder]

Not if you keep allowing investors to buy up all the new housing. Vancouver did this: build, build, build and investors bought, bought, bought.

Nearly 50% of all new housing built in Vancouver is bought up by investors. To purchase a place in Vancouver you 10x the local median salary.

[QIYGT]

There are not nearly enough homes yet.

> These 12 cities alone say they will need a total of more than 250,000 new homes built over the next five or 10 years to meet demand from current residents who are inadequately housed and future residents who will move to Metro Vancouver.

https://vancouversun.com/business/real-estate/many-new-homes...

[adam_arthur]

Investors are the ones who finance new housing. You want the investors to be purchasing land and financing new construction.

Unfortunately there tends to be a lot of interventions which make building adequate housing difficult. But remote work has allowed more developer friendly places like Texas and Florida to attract net migration.

Austin is number one (or close to) for new housing permits and every few months I see the city council changing ordinances to make it even easier. Imagine San Francisco did this 20 years ago instead of stifling every effort to build something?

Blaming developers is one of the reasons housing is expensive. Yes, they make money, but they do it because they’re providing a good that’s in demand. Thats how a market based economy works. When things are in short supply, price goes up which incents new supply/competition.

[HDThoreaun]

Investors buy housing because there's not enough of it, making it valuable. It wouldn't be a good investment if we built enough.

[nmca]

Because they're not building enough.

[max_expectation]

Living in Vancouver, 10x seems like a very low multiplier.