No, I'm suggesting that one problem with housing is wealthy real estate developers who have undue political influence.

I wish they had more influence, then they’d be able to build more and prices would go down.

I'm all for building more housing, as long as it comes with the necessary infrastructure - schools, roads, parking, public transportation, etc. Where I live, developers seem to get government approval to build in locations where they can rake in a lot of money at high prices without having to worry about such things.

(In fact, my local government is actually closing roads near new housing because "f#ck cars" is apparently a hip idea these days.)

It's been hip since drivers started showing up and killing people. The less parking the better.

Right. Let's just go back to agrarian times when people rode horses to get around.

Indeed, that is the only alternative and the favoured option for those trying to make it safe for their kids to bike to school. Though I prefer mules myself.

Let me guess. You already own a home?

Your own example seems to show that the culprit lies with local governance, not developers, wouldn’t you agree?

No. Let's not pretend that it's OK for developers to try to obtain undue influence over government officials.

There’s a puzzling contradiction between your claim that developers are the problem, on one hand, and then your own anecdote on the other, not to mention the article that very convincingly debunks the idea that housing shortage is the fault of developers. I must be missing something, because frankly this isn’t making any sense.

I'm not saying that developers are the cause of the housing shortage.

I'm saying that developers are eager to build housing and sometimes are able to cut corners via undue influence over public officials. That leads to more housing (good), but it also erodes the quality of life for residents (bad).

It's really not that hard to understand.

Money is politics, at least since Citizens United. Depending on your locality, for much longer.