I'm no ideologue, so I'm fine with scattering around some government subsidized housing to help out those who have been hit worst by the housing crisis.

It's a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed, so I think the solution needs to be mostly market-based, but it's going to take a lot of different approaches to fix things.

Fundamentally this problem is not fixable.

Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/...

The moment rents drop for whatever reason (more building), a new batch of people will finally afford to move in.

> Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/...

And people say everyone wants to live here in Bend, Oregon.

And people say everyone wants to live in Boulder, Colorado.

Just maybe... it's not actually true.

And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...

> And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing

Only in the sense of getting more bang for the buck. It's the 10th most expensive city to rent in the world: https://infogram.com/1prdmkx1zvdve1sg79z2vp56vmsm2ygmn90

Or a more comprehensive study here: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000049...

Notice something in these list? It's all famous cities. The fact that they have wildly different housing regulations doesn't affect the rent prices, any supply is immediately absorbed back.

They've managed to hold prices steady in a desirable place. That's a pretty good accomplishment. Compare and contrast with the bay area where housing earns more on an hourly basis than many people do:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article208678414.html