I know this is a common talking point, but what are you suggesting, specifically? Are you accounting for temporarily vacant homes due to finding new tenants? Or homes that are up for sale? Or whether people actually want to live in the places these homes exist? eg are you suggesting struggling tenants in San Francisco should move to Detroit? What about vacation homes, are you suggesting policies to make it harder to own a second home?
Things I'd suggest: literally any approach that doesn't divert funding to mega-developers who use the "housing crisis" narrative to drive the problems everyone's complaining about in the first place, and an excellent place to start would be dismantling the hyperconcentration of capital around a handful of major metro areas. How best to accomplish that is left as an exercise, but understand there is no housing crisis. The real crisis centers around the lack of opportunity outside of major metro areas. Folks wouldn't clump this tight if other options were available.
You joke but sometimes that is the most practical answer.
In my 20s I lived near Manhattan and my goal was to move into Manhattan. But.. it never happened. Way too expensive. I beat my head against that wall for a couple years but it became clear it was impossible.
So I moved to a (back-then) much cheaper area of California and bought a house.
But should incentivizing your behavior be a _policy goal_. I think not. Cities are mainly engines of wealth creation with concentrated opportunity. We should expand the supply of apartments in city centers so that they can remain so. They should not be nearly as expensive as country club suburbs. Our grandparents' grandparents understood this and made room for their children and their grandkids. We weren't so lucky with our grandparents. We can choose differently for ourselves and our children.
> But should incentivizing your behavior be a _policy goal_.
No. But pragmatically just like in finance "the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent", housing policy can also remain against you for decades or way more. As an individual, sometimes it's better to move and have a nice house and lead a good life than to spend a lifetime fighting policy.
K so what we're actually saying is everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere regardless of regional land/property values? I might actually agree with that but I'm pretty sure nobody's going to get behind building a trailer park in the Hamptons.
No, I wouldn't get behind it either. The median income (individual but I'd be fine with household) in an area should be enough to buy a starter home in that area. Until then, the area is underbuilt. The Bay Area pretending an apocalyptic flood of poor people will descend upon them when professionals making a (extremely sarcastic voice) _mere_ 100k stand a chance of buying is and will always be laughable.