> Isn't this article just taking a roundabout way of commenting that landowners in highly productive areas are choking growth and more productivity by siphoning

> Isn't this article just taking a roundabout way of commenting that landowners in highly productive areas are choking growth and more productivity by siphoning too much money off of the non-landowners for use of the land? I understand that they're the Economist so they can't outright say that the rich are hurting the economy by hurting the poor, but come on, at least be a little more clear. I don't know, the article seems to be rather clear on the matter: > If regulatory limits on building heights and density were relaxed, fewer plots of land would be needed to satisfy a given level of demand. That would reduce the rents collected by landowners, since any uptick in demand could quickly be met by new development. Just as soaring agricultural productivity led to a decline in the relative economic power of rural landowners in the 19th and 20th centuries, the relaxation of strict limits on development would lead to a decline in property wealth relative to the economy as a whole. More of the gains of economic activity would flow to workers and investors.