It’s not just a hunch. There is a strong theoretical basis for why that will case prices to go down and supply to go up. And that theory is backed with actual evidence. Houston has more new home starts than the entire state of California, its housing prices are stable despite explosive population growth. Tokyo likewise has more housing starts than New York, LA, and Houston combined, and prices there are stable despite a growing population as people move into the city from the rest of Japan. The thing both places have in common is very streamlined zoning laws.
Zoning proponents are like anti-vaxxers and climate changer deniers.
In japan, housing purchase values ACTUALLY decrease! Which makes sense when you think that the building is a depreciating asset that is rotting, just like any other hard asset you buy.
Contrast that with nyc which has been a steady rise for now 50+ years when it became evident that the city would not be a rat den forever (and i live here)
I will never wrap my head around the concept that building more housing won't help housing prices because apparently 7 billion people want to live in San Francisco or something.
Zoning proponents are like anti-vaxxers and climate changer deniers.
Pure hyperbole. Unless you literally believe that there should be no proscriptions against me building, for example, a major trash incineration facility on a plot of land in the middle of your quiet residential neighborhood -- just because I "own" it -- then congratulations, you're a zoning advocate.
Everyone acknowledges the need for some form of zoning (or zoning-equivalent) legislation. It's just how cities work.
> for example, a major trash incineration facility on a plot of land in the middle of your quiet residential neighborhood
We can either chat about the 0.01% of scenarios ... or the other 99.99%. The other 99.99% look extremely similar ... it's towns not allowing two-family homes in one-family zones. Three-family homes in two-family or one-family zones. We're not even talking about apartment buildings. All of those are built using "variances", which just illustrate how absurd the system is.
Oh and speaking about your example? I live in a two-family home in a two-family zone ... next to a bus depot. How you ask? Well, they just got a variance I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The outright toxic projects that developers and city leaders routinely propose run at a least a couple of orders of magnitude above 0.01 percent.
Then there's a huge fat tail of other cases (big box retail, correctional facilities, treatment centers... not to mention freeway expansions and so forth) that, lo and behold -- not everyone who loves within a short radius of is a huge fan of, to say the least.
The point is - it's a grey scale, and you're painting it as a binary. It's not.
> The outright toxic projects that developers and city leaders routinely propose run at a least a couple of orders of magnitude above 0.01 percent.
This is true, but does not contradict my point. How many tiny projects are never run through anything or even considered because regular people don't have a mountain of cash/lawyers/etc. and simply comply with the law, while all those toxic projects hire lawyers to get variances?
How many two-family homes are never built or even considered because the zone is one-family? How many housing units have we lost this way?
We can certainly ask all kinds of questions about whether some forms of zoning are a good idea or not. Certainly many are outdated, illogical and/or counterproductive.
But the point is that everyone (whether they say so or not) acknowledged that at least some baseline of codified land use regulation -- a.k.a. "zoning" -- is necessary.
It's just a question of what kind -- and who should benefit.
Sounds like a hunch, rather than a plan.
I say that because while it sounds like that "ought to work" there's no evidence that (by itself) it will be sufficient to make a dent in the problem.