First, the second you start using all caps to make an argument, in effect yelling, you significantly lose any credibility your argument might otherwise have had. If you want to make an effective argument, and for readers to not otherwise ignore your point, I'd recommend not doing that. It does no one involved any good, and essentially shuts down the conversation.

Second, your overall tone here seems incredibly condescending. I realize it's often difficult to judge tone on the internet, so if I have misread that tone, I apologize. However, condescension is another quick way to short-circuit any fruitful conversation you might have otherwise had.

It's fine to disagree with someone, even to disagree vociferously, but talking down to someone is not going to convince them of anything. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If you want to not only convince someone of something, but also have a fruitful conversation where hopefully everyone involved actually learns something, it's generally wise to assume the person you're talking to is an intelligent human being who has valid reasons for believing the things they do, regardless of whether you agree with those reasons or not, and treat them accordingly.

This is a sign that a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos is not enough to match demand. But (there's a little law out there called "Supply and Demand", if I'm remembering right), there's a correct amount to build that would. Saying that the necessary supply to meet demand is infinite is quite silly.

> >"There is no free market in housing." Not true. Go visit large geographic areas that are not 'destination cities' like Stockton; Modesto; Vallejo.

What you're seeing here is that we have land-use policy that allows us to sanely build cities up until a point, whereupon speculation over land value will make new development economically and politically infeasible.

Nobody wants the extra land in Stockton very much, but everybody wants Palo Alto land. The problem is that the land is held for very little cost by people who don't want to actually use it. (The market is giving a very strong signal, via price, that is should be developed for housing with much higher density.)

Is Tokyo a destination city? Yes. Total urban population? 38 million people.

I don't think you realize how attractive a beautiful city really is to the people of our planet.

While I'd agree that 38 million people is not 'infinite' -- it's a lot of people. Palo Alto is at 66,000 people right now.

Did Tokyo's decision to allow high density housing solve their 'housing is too expensive in Tokyo' problem?

NO. Tokyo is one of the most expensive cities on the planet to reside in.

Again, adding supply to a Destination City will NOT bring down housing costs. The crybaby lawyer failed to factor in the difference between Palo Alto and Stockton.

And it will be a big surprise to her -- Santa Cruz is very pricey. And won't be getting any cheaper.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c...

Why yes, it did. Take a look at the graph in that article. Housing in Tokyo is still expensive, but it didn't get even more expensive the way other cities did, like San Francisco. That may not be perfect, but it is a clear win.

BTW, the sign Tokyo is affordable is that all those people manage to live there. Japanese salaries are set very low to prevent anyone from thinking of having fun or quitting their salaryman jobs before the appointed time.

In any case, the solution is to build. I don't see a good argument in your posts that it's preferable to stop building.