Housing prices continuously rising to slurp up any marginal income has been studied by economists for a couple of centuries (rent extraction), and taxation solutions such as a Land Value Tax were suggested by Adam Smith himself.
https://blogs.imf.org/2021/10/18/housing-prices-continue-to-...
Even in this situation where almost every development is approved, it doesn't lower prices at all. The reality is that when demand is continuously high, you can never keep up with supply. It just keeps coming.
Which is what happened to my town. A small, quiet, rural town. That was 20 years ago. Now it's packed. Every inch used. Traffic jams just to get to the center. Agricultural and nature areas transformed into concrete.
Quality of life is down whilst prices just keep rising regardless. Do these people have a right to live here? YES. Do I have a right to forever preserve my old town? NO. I'm just saying NIMBYism isn't some roadblock standing in the way of an actual solution.
That doesn't mean 'cheap' if demand is also increasing, but it does cause prices to be lower relative to cities that restrict supply. This is just basic economics, people twist themselves in knots to come up with reasons why the obvious supply/demand is somehow not applicable in this case.
If you allow building in capitalist markets then increased supply will reduces prices as demand is met.
> We have selected markets that we believe will experience strong population, household formation and employment growth and exhibit constrained levels of new home construction.
Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1687229/000119312517...
Meanwhile the NIMBYs that are creating it blame everyone else and play victim.
Fight back: https://yimbyaction.org/2021/ - and have fun and meet cool people while doing so!
If BlackRock doesn't continue to gobble up homes at current prices & rates - then his argument falls apart.
Does anyone have evidence that BlackRock is STILL buying properties en masse?
Real Estate scaling supply to meet demand is in direct conflict with old properties increasing in value forever. You can't really have both and we're stuck a valley of bad incentives that favor existing owners.
If we let people build housing to meet demand it would fix it, but existing owners are motivated to leverage enormous amounts of equity (and local political power) to stop any new building in order to keep property scarcity high. Their explanations beyond that are all just motivated reasoning rationalizations. Hopefully stuff like RHNA will force local municipalities to act.
I can empathize somewhat with someone who spent $3M on a crappy house being afraid of being under water from increased supply, but I have no empathy for someone who bought a $300k house 30yrs ago that's now worth millions acting to obstruct new construction.