This is a reply to the sibling comment rather than the parent (which I largely agree with). Politically incorrect rhetoric aside, it's clear than Vancouver's housing shortage can be easily addressed by free market mechanics.

Increased supply, even if not available on the market means that the owner or occupant will not outbid a local on a different housing unit. Multiple additional housing units will over time enter the market and reduce competition and rent increases. A more friendly zoning situation will also spur developers to bring in more housing capacity. This will stabilize or reduce rents, as has been empirically demonstrated in the past year by Seattle.

For the last 20 years Vancouver has had a building boom in which housing starts and completions have been at record highs. We're adding housing stock as fast as we can and faster than almost any municipality in North America. After 20 years, we're at record high prices, available rental properties are at record lows, and rents are at record highs. How is it that glutting supply has failed to drive prices down, correcting over-investment in our housing market?

Faster than Seattle on a population-adjusted basis?

I'm not sure why I should give the "correct free market response" any airtime at all, given that 1) it would appear to require making one of the top 5 Canadian cities into "scorched earth", meaning a wasteland of empty housing in order to drive out investment money so that... why? and 2) any one of a hundred or more demonstrable failures of free markets that have fueled the drive for regulation more than anything else over the same period.

Because having a bunch of free, empty apartments that investors paid for is wonderful! It means that they can be used and are available for all the productive things that building are, on the cheap.

If you could wave a magic wand and do the same thing for food and water wouldn't you do so?

If they fill up because they're cheap, that indicates market demand that will bring the investors back. You're not going to keep them out unless Vancouver becomes, in significant part, a ghost town.

Which has another cost: everyone here who owns their own property would see their most significant asset disappear as the value of their home plummeted along with all the investment properties.

If I could do the same for food, we'd soon live in a hellscape of rotten food.