Yeah, I'm absolutely not saying deregulation is a good idea, just like goat-law. I can see how my comment read though, rewrote a bit to make the cynical undertone a bit more obvious.

I was only pointing out that the current, specific set of laws, is keeping this problem a reality. That it's not a particularly natural situation to be in.

I think there's a blind spot on the left for this one. Opening up zoning for higher density is effectively a giveaway to local developers, who are invariably shitbags. It'd be preferable if solutions like banning corporations from owning housing could be enacted.

That's based on the theory that there are enough houses and flippers and hedge funds are just sitting on them in order to rake it in later as property values are driven up. If that were true, we'd expect to see large vacancy rates in cities. Problem is, we don't. My city has <4% vacancy for rentals and <1% for home ownership. This seems to be similar to the numbers in many other major cities in North America. If we got rid of every corporation that was sitting on a house unused, the available housing would go up by 4% or so, at most.

We need more housing stock. As it stands, the only way to do that is a giveaway to shitbag developers. They're the ones that hold the capitol for building more housing.

This could be mitigated by city councils also encouraging/mandating those developers to have unionized staff.