Did you read the statement you're replying to? The problem is not lack of land, but the way the land is utilised. This isn't unique to New Zealand either, Canada has done the same, rewarding established people who lived there for a long time and punishing newcomers, young, or otherwise not so well established.

> Did you read the statement you're replying to? The problem is not lack of land, but the way the land is utilised.

Yes, I did read the comment I replied to. I asked how supply would be increased, because I want to know how he would do that. Hence, why I asked him what he would propose.

You didn't answer the question either, simply restating dissatisfaction with how people live. So, what would _you_ do to increase supply instead of decreasing demand?

Rezone to allow for more apartments and larger houses. It’s pretty simple.

Now we are getting to the actual discussion. Of couse, land can be rezoned, but _why_ do that? Why is it a 'better' solution to increase supply through effectively removing people from their homes instead of decreasing demand through denying purchase of homes?

You can outlaw making homes, but if you don't outlaw making babies, where will the people live?

Where do they live now?

P.S. Nobody is outlawing the making of homes. That's false hyperbole on your part.

What do you think bans on duplexes, apartment buildings, and row houses do in a city?

> What do you think bans on duplexes, apartment buildings, and row houses do in a city?

What point are you trying to make? The article doesn't talk about people being banned from building houses but about a ban on foreigners purchasing homes.