The state senator for San Francisco (Scott Wiener) is trying to do just that[0].

In a city known for wacky politicians, Scott Wiener was a breath of fresh air. He also signed the city's long term Subway plan[1].

0: https://artplusmarketing.com/housing-is-a-statewide-crisis-a...

1: http://connectsf.org/components/subway-vision/

Hi there! This is exactly the problem we work on daily at the local SF YIMBY coalition (sfyimby.org). If you're interested in making a difference in local SF politics, especially around improving the housing situation, come to one of our meetings! We move votes :)

Even if we wrested control away from local municipalities, we would still be faced with pushback from homeowners nationwide who don't want to see a reduction in housing prices. I think realistically we'll only see policy improvements on this front when we reach a point were the overwhelming majority of Americans have been priced out of home ownership and no longer view real estate appreciation as personally beneficial.

The reason housing is so expensive is because it is a financial vehicle, and has little to do with housing density. It's a fantasy that building more will bring prices down.

Housing prices were remarkably consistent with all other prices for the 100 years before around 1998.

This argument doesn't past the smell test as it doesn't explain why home prices are less today in Detroit than 10 years ago and why home prices fell around the country in 2008.

What changes in 1998? I'm guessing the appetite to lend (and thus create new) money and ever decreasing interest rates.

NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) is a term for some of this underpinning. Most people claim to be all for new housing being constructed as long as it's not in their area.

>"make them instead at the state or national level. "

That is what the case in China, but the house price is still very high.

I agree it is people problem, but I did not see a way to solve it. A lot people want to make the house price affordable, but a lot do not. probably, greedy is human nature.

I don't even think it's necessarily a greed problem as much as a self interest problem, assuming its possible to make that distinction.

When I see people who constantly hold up urban high density housing development, in part to keep certain demographics from enjoying their neighborhoods, all the while enjoying the protection of limited property tax increases due to Prop 13 while still reaping the rewards of housing appreciation, I can make a case for myself that these people are being greedy and unethical.

On the other hand, if someone works hard, saves for years to make a down payment on a mortgage, services the debt of that mortgage for 20-30 years, and relies on their house as their primary investment, I can't really blame them for voting for policies that increase housing prices. I think this highlights why the issue will be so hard to solve. It's going to be very difficult to get people who have been paying into a mortgage under the assumption that housing is a safe investment to suddenly support policies that will result in real estate depreciation.

Also in terms of housing cost, the major players in building new apartment buildings are real estate developers. Their number people tell them exactly how to maximize profit per square footage and that goes into the design from the beginning.

I was having a thought the other day that, were I a developer, and could afford to, what would I do with a five-story building? Ground floor commercial, top floor market rate (or above?) and then floors 1-4 a percentage below market rate with maybe a set increase for each year. I guess it would work as long as I factor in paying back to the bank and making a certain profit (but not the max). I don't know, I'm not a developer, I don't even know how one becomes one without already having money to do so, but in my AEC office design decisions are one thing but at the end of the day it is 1) building as cheaply as possible while 2) maximizing profit per square foot.

Higher districts like states or federal governments, already have the power to create subdistricts with favourable leadership and goals. They're just uninterested in doing so.

In the past, incorperated townships were created for specific goals: we have a coal mine here, create a township around it. Today, that kind of top-down leadership is no longer used so widely.

California could carve out a new township, and use its state budget to incentivize the development of an urban region with cheap housing, high tech jobs, and interesting culture. They do not do so out of choice, not out of inability.

An avg. of ~$75 billion in govt funds are spent on homeless social services in the U.S. every year with very little results... that's ~$123k/yr for every individual homeless person.

Also, the problem with housing costs is that land is finite and expensive, hence the need for vertical growth and smaller units to add to the supply.

Finally, another problem is the influential, nativist NIMBY homeowners whom styme affordable housing efforts like vertical growth and microhomes to keep their property values high, while millions sleep rough on the street. The disenfranchised will stay screwed until they organize and demand minimal human decency.

Where do you get the $75B figure from? Looking around, it looks closer to $5-7B: https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/2016_B...