I cannot comment on other countries, but this is clearly not practiced in the US. The US has not simplified building and zoning rules or made them more permissive. The US follows the third option: do nothing and hope it fixes itself.

I'm confused... Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here? How exactly do you envision a government housing program to side-step all of the above issues? Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing? How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco?

> Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here?

Minus the leading language (as I presume these so-called "anti-development" politicians don't self-define as such), yes, this is what I'm arguing.

> Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing?

I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism. Do NIMBYs exist? Of course. But their impact is overstated, and overconflated with genuine concerns: there are valid reasons to object to new developments, though these have a tendency to be lumped in with less valid objectors for political gain/expediency.

> How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco?

Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.

> I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism.

I'm not familiar with Ireland or the UK, but for the US at least, this is absolutely false. I'm most familiar with San Francisco so let's look at that as an example. Why do you think it takes nearly 2 years to get permitting done for housing here? Why do you think you need to pay $100ks in fees just to break ground? Why do you think all of the housing built over the last 20 years has been located in one part of the city (SOMA)? Why do you think our Supervisors are so reluctant to adopt by-right zoning and ministerial review processes? Why was huge swaths of the city down-zoned in the 70s? Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change.

> Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.

Absolutely. There are of course many factors, but a big one are the various road-blocks politicians put up, and the concessions (rents) they extract from projects for their preferred special interests. These are things that don't just go away once private developers are out of the mix.

Have you ever stopped to think why the market hasn't been able to produce the necessary supply of housing? It's not because they aren't interested in making money.

> Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change.

I may get downvoted for this, but if I were to live in a nice neighborhood with a nice view I will be damned if I would say yes to any construction that I see it could ruin my neighborhood or take my view away. Yes, NIMBY attitude, but a lot of people desire to live in nice places.

I think the abstract point is that you bought something at a certain price and would like it to not be devalued, by whatever criteria you used to value it at that price in the first place.

> Migration is not a new phenomenon; citing it as an excuse for the utter failure of modern housing policy is disingenuous.

You say it's a failure but for those who own land or have tenants - including the average homeowner, it's a success. It's also a success for house builders, of course.

From [1]:

> In total 115 MPs across all parties are landlords, accounting for 18 per cent of the House of Commons. This compares to around three per cent of the UK adult population who are landlords.

It's in their interests.

On top of that, the supply is dwarfed by demand even before all that migration, which drives the "success" I outlined above, the high inward migration has kept wages low and reduced the need for the kind of large capital investment that would be needed to replace cheap labour.

Again, the kind of wealthy people who are landowners benefit from this, perhaps in this instance not the average homeowner, though there was that woman on Question Time who wondered where they'd find people to make her Pret coffee[2].

The real failures here are the failure to understand the interests of all the parties involved: those with land (high migration drives demand, increases wealth and suppresses outgoings like wages and R&D), and the interests of those without (stronger negotiating position in labour market, lower demand for housing). The average Joe should oppose large scale unskilled migration with all their might, if they want a home, enough doctors, better working conditions etc.

Strangely enough, the media, largely owned by very rich people or run by government aligned interests, seem to be against that. It's a mystery how so many people are called racists for being against migration levels unparalleled in history with so many deleterious effects. A total mystery.

[1] https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/7/reveale...

[2] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-pre...

> It's in their interests.

More complicated than that. You should try reading Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the politicians we deserve".

Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.

> More complicated than that. You should try reading Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the politicians we deserve".

I'm left thinking "why?"

The book covers what is necessary economically to run to be an MP.

> Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.

MPs become landlords for the passive income that is necessary given that running to be an MP can leave you destitute.

Landlords aren't (usually) becoming MPs in order to vote for more favourable conditions for landlords. Indeed, there have been many policies detrimental to landlords e.g. removal of mortgage interest income tax relief.

Landlords don't need to become MPs in order for MPs to become landlords or for their interests to emerge as it would with any other contingent with shared interests making up 18% of sitting MPs.

> Indeed, there have been many policies detrimental to landlords e.g. removal of mortgage interest income tax relief.

For all we know there would have been more legislation of this kind if they hadn't been there.

Aside from that, why is it that, since the majority of MPs are aligned with major parties and major parties pay for prospective MPs to run, and since MPs are remunerated well above average and have lavish expenses compared to the rest of us, that they would become bankrupt?

On top of that, they can earn big money if they get into cabinet[1], and they don't even lose that much when they leave[2]:

> For MPs defeated at the 2019 election, the average loss-of-office payment was £5,250 – equivalent to just under one month of their £84,000 salary.

The average UK salary for that year (2019):

> The Office of National Statistics has released its provisional update of the UK Average Salary 2019, showing that the average full-time salary is £36,611 and average part-time salary is £12,495.

[1] https://news.sky.com/story/mps-second-jobs-why-it-pays-to-le...

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-medals-pa...

[3] https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/average-salaries-u...

Migration at these levels is absolutely a new phenomenon.

Most men have the capability to build a house themselves and with help of friends. What is needed is the release of land, plain and simple. The landed gentry have enormous amounts of real estate and they want high prices to release any part - this is their retirement plan for them, their children, and children's children.

Let workers buy land cheap and you will have a lower base level of housing cost, bringing the cost for all other housing down. Why would I want the government to rob me to build a house, when I could have built it myself if I hadn't been robbed?

It's easy to just down-vote my post and move on. But stop for a moment and think about it: Why is the lifetime output of even a highly skilled professional worth just a tiny fraction of what a land owner in the same community is worth from doing nothing? The land owner can sell a tiny piece of his estate every 20 years and live his whole life without contributing anything. And on the opposite side, those who are not landed will have to work hard their whole life and usually with nothing to show for it.

Go talk to everyday people and ask what their dream is. Except for winning the lottery, the dream of everybody is to buy real estate and live of rent and price increases. Not having a career, not creating a big and successful business. Those are fools errand and a waste of your life, because laws and governance are now all-in on making every aspect of the economy having the purpose of transferring wealth to the landed gentry.