Restricting ownership may help but there are aren’t enough houses or apartments in the places people want to live.
Building more housing is the best answer. It lowers the price because there is more supply. There simply aren’t enough homes in the Bay Area, NYC and many other major cities.
If you could build many large apartments in the Bay Area you could fill it with people who’d rather live there compared to a tiny old overpriced house. Zoning and existing residents stop that from being built though.
> Building more housing is the best answer. It lowers the price because there is more supply. There simply aren’t enough homes in the Bay Area, NYC and many other major cities.
One problem is building more luxury housing leads to more rent-seekers / investment homes / transplants, which doesn't solve the problems the area faces (e.g. lower income families can't make it work, and in addition to it sucking for them, they staff lots of critical functions so it ends up sucking for everyone since the price of everything increases and you get a whole class of supercommuting low-income folks -- ask bay area folks about their daycare teachers).
We need more _affordable_ housing, likely gated on AGI.
Building more housing is the best answer. It lowers the price because there is more supply. There simply aren’t enough homes in the Bay Area, NYC and many other major cities.
If you could build many large apartments in the Bay Area you could fill it with people who’d rather live there compared to a tiny old overpriced house. Zoning and existing residents stop that from being built though.