Build more housing and remove regulations - but wait… developers are never going to build housing that lowers the price of housing overall. This would only help people who have all the cash to build their own single family dream house… which isn’t the people we really need to help.
The answer is building public housing where the government has no incentive to constantly extract as much as possible out of the tenants.
I don’t see anyway forward for the US other than a public housing revolution. As long as everyone’s NW is tied up in property, public housing will be the only way to get more affordable housing onto the market. Every other action will constantly push the cost of housing up or keep it flat, at best.
You do realize that developers are in the business of building housing right? There will be developers building anything legal to build at any cost level that they think will lead to returns. However in most of the US, most kinds of housing are illegal to build. Building triplexes doesn't necessarily make single family homes cheaper(and generally will not) but it does product units that may be cheaper than the current average price.
> As long as everyone’s NW is tied up in property
It's totally a myth that building new housing, specifically things like apartments lowers the value of single family homes. In some cases, building more housing might increase the value of your SFH, because there is more economic activity nearby and more potential buyers when you go to sell. Housing need not be 0 sum.
> There will be developers building anything legal to build at any cost level that they think will lead to returns.
Developers will prioritize high-margin projects. Which is why almost all new developments are "luxury developments". I cant remember hearing about a low-cost development except as begrudging token to "affordable housing" tacked onto a luxury development to meet the letter of the law.
> Have you ever considered that developers also own existing property and land?
Yes I have. I know someone well who does site selection for an affordable housing developer, a number of urban planners, and some folks who work in construction. Developers pretty universally want to be developing properties as quickly as they can. Deal flow is important.
But you know, condescend to me about something I probably know more about than you.
Yet, in any major city like Sydney - developers "want to be developing properties as quickly as they can" and yet will leave the property vacant rather than sell it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJE3B_ra3lY
Why does any solution in your mind involve capitalists getting more money?
I’m no expert on Australia so I won’t comment. But I’m the US there is demand for housing, available financing, and developers who want to do projects. The blocker here is regulatory. We simply see in the US that when cities allow more housing to be built prices stabilize and sometimes go down.
The answer is building public housing where the government has no incentive to constantly extract as much as possible out of the tenants.
I don’t see anyway forward for the US other than a public housing revolution. As long as everyone’s NW is tied up in property, public housing will be the only way to get more affordable housing onto the market. Every other action will constantly push the cost of housing up or keep it flat, at best.