I thought this might be the trick that would get pulled. House price inflation is a completely inappropriate measure. House prices are not kept stupidly high by the 1% or capital class but by the 50.1% that vote against allowing any kind of building anywhere near an existing house, not near an existing house or that, heav'n forfend, might endanger the habitat of the lesser spotted newt.
> House prices are not kept stupidly high by the 1% or capital class but by the 50.1% that vote against allowing any kind of building anywhere near an existing house,
The discussion is not about a specific area or your specific area. There are large parts of the US where there is no such NIMBY voting allowed, much less enacted to prohibit construction. Prices have more or less ballooned everywhere in the US.
There were 0 votes on housing in Fargo, ND over the last few years and new homes are consistently over 400k because the land is cheap. The issue is not some uniform voting block artificially inflating housing prices.
Random home in Jacksonville FL: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1414-N-Center-St-Orange-C...
I was referring more to the additional processes that have been weaponized like CEQA.
In most of the US, additional zoning is welcomed. Zoning for smaller locales is controlled by financial limitations, rather than entrenched interests. Who doesn't want utilities to be brought to their area? For example, Puyallup WA is ~40 mi away from Seattle and there are still residences in Industrial zoned areas waiting for residential zoning to bring them sewer access. It's about the cost, not grassroots opposition.
Most towns can grow in every direction as fast as they can build. The issue is cost of land development and regulation, moreso than NIMBY influence.
Zoning controls the type of housing that is developed, and thus far typically represents the interests of NIMBYs without explicitly saying as much.
Sure, changing zoning from "light industrial" or "commercial" to include some level of residential is often welcome, and is generally a good idea. But such changes are not the crux of the battle over housing. We don't actually want towns to grow in every direction without bounds, as a general rule: we want them to have sufficient housing that the people who need to live there can afford to do so. That typically requires dealing with the zoning laws that prevent increases in residential density ... i.e. NIMBY-ism.
As I understand it in most of the United States zoning is controlled by City governments which are under democratic control. If enough of the people didn't want the zoning, the zoning wouldn't be happening.
I don't think you can separate the behavior of the voting public from the conditions imposed on them by the capital class and the propaganda they feed us through their media properties.
