[guitarbill]

> Supply needs to meet demand: we most need new housing where the economy is booming and jobs are being added.

> But you act like we need some federal authority to say, "okay guys, put housing HERE". That's totally unnecessary: if regulations are streamlined sufficiently, developers will build where demand exists. No central authority required.

Relax. I said no such thing.

>> But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas.

> ???

> I'm sorry, are you unaware that most jobs aren't remote or something? This is a very strange and simple thing to misunderstand.

I'm just going to quote this for posterity, noting that you cut off "In an ideal world, it works." on purpose. Let's keep things civil, and not try to misrepresent.

[TulliusCicero]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. That you're apparently confused as to why rural villages are dying while major cities are very expensive is just baffling.

It's not even really related to it being hard to build, since even if it was easy and there was abundant housing, you'd still expect major cities to be at least somewhat more expensive than rural villages, and it being hard to build housing somewhere isn't why the rural villages are dying.

> Relax. I said no such thing.

Then what was the point of asking "and where?" Especially since "where demand is high" was already explained. What further answer were you looking for?