>poc should be allowed to build inter-generational wealth via housing

IMO, this is slightly at odds with the OPs point that creating housing investments is a bad thing. One of the problems in my eyes is that a disproportionate amount of Americans wealth is tied up in their homes. This creates incentives to protect those "investments" through things like NIMBY policies, tax incentives, etc. An alternative would be to create a system that fosters more diversified inter-generational wealth.

How dare people get concerned over something so trivial as "having someplace to live"

well..lets hear your genius idea then. Idea that isn't people voting to bring down their own property values.

Implement a land value tax by exempting buildings and improvements from paying a property tax, shift state income and sales taxes onto land value, and ease zoning regulations.

that's still going to have the effect of lowering property values though.

it's a catch-22. "lowering the cost of housing" and "lowering property values" are the exact same thing. there's no actual political appetite to lower the cost of housing, because all the people in charge of making those decisions are property owners who don't want to see their investment lose value.

It may lower property values some, but in the long run even homeowners will be better-off as other, more burdensome taxes decrease. Sure, increasing land taxes may not be that popular, but pair it with abolishing income taxes? That's a different political proposition.

It's also why my first step is not to sell it as the implementation of a new tax; rather, it is an exemption to buildings. People don't like new taxes, but everyone loves exemptions!

Political problems are often difficult to solve but that by no means makes them impossible.

This should be a bot.

> - nimby are the real evil

> - another side convo about suburban housing = bad. we should all live in tightly packed cities with no cars.

Are they wrong though ?

Removing zoning restrictions (and fake environmental/historical significance reports) will immediately restore supply-n-demand stability to housing. Want more housing ? Build it. Simple as that.

> second only to 'tech interviews and hiring' in terms of predictability

The main difference is that no one has a good alternative to tech interviews. On the other hand, every single NIMBY problem has been analyzed to death, with location relevant solutions proposals and verified proofs of them working.

Many of those perspectives have gained ground in recent years/decades and were not common or popular perspectives in years past, when housing prices weren't in crisis. You make it sound like repetitive nonsense when in fact these are salient points, relevant to the times and worthy of being spread and discussed.