(cont.)
We cannot be sure if the forecast was erroneous and over-states the supply-demand in-balance or not. On the other hand, there is much evidence from municipalities around the world of a new demographic preference for living close to the core, as well as historical evidence that demand for outlying areas slows the further it gets from the core (particularly in the absence of good transit). Then there is the issue that there is a surplus of land within the Greenbelt and while Mr. Clayton and others blame regulations - they offer no real empirical evidence that the regulations are a factor. And such an explanation does not explain a sudden hyper-leap in prices. As Josh Gordon concludes (with a better analysis than me) supply issues might be an issue, but minor in comparison to speculation etc)

So, Mr. Clayton's paper seems to want to amplify an argument that just happens to coincide with the interests of land owners and developers. Coincidence or not?