Ease up on the zoning laws. Many zoning laws in that same metro area prohibit high density housing. The same high density housing that is most profitable and reduces the cost of housing.
Sounds like a hunch, rather than a plan.
I say that because while it sounds like that "ought to work" there's no evidence that (by itself) it will be sufficient to make a dent in the problem.
This isn't true at all. There are numerous studies about regional effects and now even neighborhood ones:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/upshot/luxury-apartments-...
Zoning proponents are like anti-vaxxers and climate changer deniers.
In japan, housing purchase values ACTUALLY decrease! Which makes sense when you think that the building is a depreciating asset that is rotting, just like any other hard asset you buy.
Contrast that with nyc which has been a steady rise for now 50+ years when it became evident that the city would not be a rat den forever (and i live here)
Pure hyperbole. Unless you literally believe that there should be no proscriptions against me building, for example, a major trash incineration facility on a plot of land in the middle of your quiet residential neighborhood -- just because I "own" it -- then congratulations, you're a zoning advocate.
Everyone acknowledges the need for some form of zoning (or zoning-equivalent) legislation. It's just how cities work.
We can either chat about the 0.01% of scenarios ... or the other 99.99%. The other 99.99% look extremely similar ... it's towns not allowing two-family homes in one-family zones. Three-family homes in two-family or one-family zones. We're not even talking about apartment buildings. All of those are built using "variances", which just illustrate how absurd the system is.
Oh and speaking about your example? I live in a two-family home in a two-family zone ... next to a bus depot. How you ask? Well, they just got a variance I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The outright toxic projects that developers and city leaders routinely propose run at a least a couple of orders of magnitude above 0.01 percent.
Then there's a huge fat tail of other cases (big box retail, correctional facilities, treatment centers... not to mention freeway expansions and so forth) that, lo and behold -- not everyone who loves within a short radius of is a huge fan of, to say the least.
The point is - it's a grey scale, and you're painting it as a binary. It's not.
I am not.
> The outright toxic projects that developers and city leaders routinely propose run at a least a couple of orders of magnitude above 0.01 percent.
This is true, but does not contradict my point. How many tiny projects are never run through anything or even considered because regular people don't have a mountain of cash/lawyers/etc. and simply comply with the law, while all those toxic projects hire lawyers to get variances?
How many two-family homes are never built or even considered because the zone is one-family? How many housing units have we lost this way?
We can certainly ask all kinds of questions about whether some forms of zoning are a good idea or not. Certainly many are outdated, illogical and/or counterproductive.
But the point is that everyone (whether they say so or not) acknowledged that at least some baseline of codified land use regulation -- a.k.a. "zoning" -- is necessary.
It's just a question of what kind -- and who should benefit.
And your plan for achieving that number is - what precisely?
There's a reason for the modest increases in unit counts these plans produce: In reality, they all end up being way harder to implement (and costing a lot more) than you or I would like to think they would.