>


there’s plenty of supply 

Source?

there needs to be a price ceiling 

Ah yes, the old “we need rent control!” argument. This results in fewer units being built (since there’s less profit incentive for developers) and less investment into upkeep/modernization/improvement. 
Lower quality, lower quantity… we all lose with rent control!
Yes, but no. It's not just building more housing. We could build a million units in the Mojave and it wouldn't solve anything. It's about building units in places where opportunity to grow exists. >

Sure, build the supply where the demand is >

Therein lies the issue: towns where demand is have strict zoning laws forbidding the construction of new housing. >

Yep! It’s a bad cycle >

What Massachusetts has done us weaponized it's public transit system. Any town that has public transit (or borders a town that does) is required to allow multiple-occupancy housing. They do not get to choose if they recieve oublic transit. >

My man 
YIMBY >

Makes me sad that this is unpopular. >

Builds more houses…
New houses get bought by investors… >

But investors rent out/ flip the houses. Increasing supply in the primary market also increases the secondary market! >

Increasing prices, putting us all in the same place we were at the start. 
Don’t get me wrong, we do need more houses, but it can’t be the only mechanism put in place. >


increasing prices 

Do you have a source for the claim that increased supply leads to higher prices? >

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that flipping houses increases prices (unless you want to suggest house flippers like working at a loss)
Also, any house that’s for rent is a house that’s not for sale, thus reducing the supply (Although more rental options decrease demand for buying houses) >

So you're saying if we were to make an army of Jimmy Carter clones then that would solve the issue, genius I love it. >

That would solve a lot of issues! >

At minimum my urge for some peanuts right now >

But a low supply is more profitable. >

Unfortunately >

I like the solution, on top of it why tf are companies buying and flipping single family homes? >

The homeless issue is a very complex one, but Id imagine if we built more public government owned housing it may help. >

It's not an easy issue.  Population density has effects on demands for water, power, sewer, schools, libraries, postal routes, roads and public transit capacities, parking, quality of life, access to grocery stores, etc.  Not forgetting that people buy into areas where they like the existing qualities of the neighborhood and don't want it to change.  Nobody buys a house/condo and says "Man this is nice but what'd be really great is if they tear down that 200 unit apartment complex across the street and put in a 1200 unit complex.". >

How about limiting the amount of properties a person can own so we don’t get landlords with dozens of homes that someone else could have bought >

Why not just forcibly evict retired couples from homes that are too big for them, and move them to retirement communities so the house can be sold to couples with kids? 
/s >

Ah yes. Low on money, just build more money. Don’t have enough food, just farm more food. If only it was actually that simple. >

I’m not saying poor people should build a house, I’m saying we should make it legal for developers to build more houses so that supply increases and price decreases… so poor people can then afford to rent or buy a house >

I was a housing developer.  Since the government s broke and we’re living on borrowed money, who is gonna pay for it?  You? >

all the taxes and the govt is still broke. they need a class in money management. >



In a lot of areas it isn't possible to build more housing than is already being built every year because there aren't enough construction workers to do so.


Many of the speculators and investors involved in the housing industry have an invested interest in, and financial ability to, buy as much of the available housing supply as possible, regardless of how many new dwellings are being made, because it puts them in a better position to maximize profits from subsequent sales or rentals.


The percentage of property owners has dropped by about 10% in the past 15 years and the trend is expected to continue, and this trend is changing attitudes toward socialism and capitalism. So there's that. >

This is not an unpopular opinion. >

Yeah, I wish people that want more regulations on housing understood that zoning regulations, i.e. other gov't regulations, are what make building apartments and missing middle housing impossible and therefore driving up rent prices. Have to decrease your rents if more units exist to compete with. >

It's not actually the supply at all though, there's whole swathes of nice little homes all across america that are empty, the reason they ARE empty is because the wannabe barons that own so much real estate are trying to strangle every bit they can out of them, which ends up making them not actually feasible for tons and tons of people. 
Like a few generations ago a lot of people practically stumbled into owning 2 bed/2 bath houses, you'd hear older people talk about their "first car" and so on, but now people struggle to be able to own a tiny ass home in nowhere cities. As ever, the real culprit's just greed. >

There's plenty of supply.
The problem is housing is being price gouged since demand for housing will always be high. So landlords can charge whatever they want for housing.
It's similar to the issue with insulin. It only costs $4 to produce insulin, but because demand will always be high for the people who need it, people who sell it can sell it for $500 regardless of supply.
There needs to be federal regulation setting a low price ceiling for houses, as well as having some houses for homeless or extremely financially burdened individuals to have government funded housing through housing first programs.