Good question, but I think the answer is that it's simply not a national issue. In New York City, you can bet that it's a campaign issue across local politicians, and it's in the news weekly. Also, it's not true that one 'can't build' in NYC due to regulations. While there are regulations (as one would expect of a highly densely populated city), there's plenty of building. The price of land, however, is obscene.
Meanwhile, that $1M condo that's one bedroom apartment you purchased in Manhattan (in Manhattan it's probably small) or even the $800K 2 bedroom you purchased in Brooklyn (in a cheaper part of Brooklyn, like Bed Stuy or Bushwick), you could live like a Sheikh in a place like Omaha, NE or (perhaps) Dallas, TX.
Hotpots like SF, NYC, Boston and so on - the smaller, dense cities with jobs and no land left - no so much.
It's not a national issue. Everyone wants to live in California because you get nice weather, high salaries and cannabis edibles rain from the sky. You're a victim of your own success.
Ultimately I think trying to slow down or deflate the bubble might make things worse for more people than just letting it pop.
To be clear, I think it's unconscionable that we prioritize these concerns when rents are so high, but average people absolutely do benefit from restrictions on housing supply as long as they are secure in long-ago mortgages and grandfathered rent control.
One of the NIMBY talking points is that upzoning creates a profit incentive to destroy rent-controlled buildings and replace them with higher-density market-rate buildings. Rent-controlled lease holders actually become more secure in their positions when the neighborhood downzones.
This is really about seniority/tenure in an area, and if there's any serious reform, it will likely be to further protect those with grandfather status from newcomers.
The problem is that, based on how things work, a significant amount of our assets are tied up in real estate. If you're a homeowner and your home's value tanks compared to the rest of the market, you're screwed! You can't move to another place because you've lost all of the money that you put into your home.
It gets even worse if you need the money: Think of elderly who sell their homes and use the profits to pay for assisted living.
Or, look at how we pay for education: We use our homes as collateral for education loans!
The unwillingness of voters to expand the housing supply is one the greatest social ills of our time. I can accept and understand that those who benefit don't want to address the issue. But, there are countless many who don't benefit from it at all.
Why is this not a great national issue of enormous debate? Why is there so little visibility? everytime i see a list of voter related issues, housing is never mentioned.
Shelter is a fundamental human need - it's at the very bottom of maslow's hierarchy of needs. If humanity can't even get past this bottom layer, we're not going anywhere.
The entire concept of real estate is wrong. You hear it all the time. Whenever real estate prices go up, people react like it's a good thing - it's not. For society to make progress, prices must come down. It's not just for those who don't have a home. Property owners should benefit too, with lower tax bills. Of course prop 13 creates more perverse incentives than i can count... I could go on, but we've already discussed this millions of times.