[com2kid]

> So my question is: why does no single city seem to break ranks?

Because city councils don't follow the laws of economics, at all!

City council members only side benefit from economic growth. Heck during the early 2000s housing boom, Seattle City Council members got negative press for "being too friendly to building developers".

As an example of this inanity, cities should be eager to have well funded efficient permitting departments, after all the faster buildings get built, the faster property taxes go up! But no, permitting departments are famously slow and awful to deal with. Simple tasks can take months, and a large complex can take years to get approved.

Every city should increase permitting costs for large projects until the building department is a profit center, and then put into place aggressive service level guarantees on response times to requests.

But that isn't what happens, my 100% ignorant guess would be entrenched power structures in permitting departments, but I honestly have no idea why.

[eru]

That's the kind of explanation I am looking for, but I'm not sure this specific one is sufficient, yet: what you describe is probably accurate for most cities, but only one city would have to break ranks.

[com2kid]

> but only one city would have to break ranks.

A very large % of voters object to dense housing. I see a lot of "too many people keep moving here, we need to stop building more houses!" comments on neighborhood forums.

That is likely the other factor.

An election cycle or two ago, a candidate in Seattle who was proposing density increases lost big time. Since then, proposals have been... less than earthshattering.

IMHO a citizens referendum is needed to really change things, but it'd need one hell of an ad campaign behind it.

People in nice neighborhoods like their neighborhoods, and they tend to have enough $ to back those feelings up when it comes to political donations. Asking them to take a gamble on completely changing the area they live at, and hoping it becomes better, is a hard sell.

[eru]

It's a shame that a developer can't just outright pay a city somehow to legalise building. There's an obvious huge surplus to be made. Perhaps distribute the proceeds amongst all the voters in the city or so.

[com2kid]

Wouldn't matter, money is not the deciding factor.

Builders already pay the city money to build, then property taxes go up and the city makes more money, and when the finished house is sold the city makes money from the sale.

The problem is the city council doesn't care. If they make the city a boat load of money but then lose the next election, their political career is over. Voted out of office for pissing everyone off is not something politicians are too keen on having happen to themselves.