>

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
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.