Cities rarely try this out in practice. There are examples of smaller cities that manage to keep up - e.g. Kristiansand in Norway, which kept the real estate price development slightly negative during a decade when the rest of the country had a massive increase. I get the impression Copenhagen has also managed to build enough. Their bubble popped in 2006 AFAICT, with moderate development since then in spite of negative interest rates.

But for large cities, there seems to almost universally be democratic agreement that we won’t build a lot more right here.

You get the odd symbolic attempt. But I’m not talking about re-zoning the odd industrial park and rationing them out to the three developers that get things done in this town.

I’m talking about building 40 stories everywhere, where previously there were 8. Consistently allowing developers to build in front of their neighbors’ ocean view. Turning 50% of the beloved hills around the city into high-rise apartments. Stuff like this, to a degree proportional with demand. Annual price increase or decrease is the signal to steer by.

My point: If you support local democratic policy that will lead to an outcome every passing ECON101 student can predict -

Own it.