> Nobody reasonable is arguing that "increasing the supply of housing increases prices" (that's a strawman) That is not a strawman. That is literally what the

> Nobody reasonable is arguing that "increasing the supply of housing increases prices" (that's a strawman) That is not a strawman. That is literally what the old-school tenant activists in San Francisco say, providing political cover for NIMBY homeowners to also reject housing supply. It’s not reasonable, but politics is not won on reason. See this hit piece: http://www.sfexaminer.com/excelsior-community-concerned-affordability-transparency-proposed-housing-development/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/excelsior-community-concerned-affo... > There are also lots of examples where gentrification displaces poor and vulnerable populations. These are real problems with development, and it does no good to simply assert that they're not real. That is confusing cause and effect. It’s not the new development that is causing gentrification. It is the lack of building elsewhere, especially in rich neighborhoods, that is causing gentrification in poor neighborhoods. And then gentrification allows expensive new housing to become economically feasible, allowing development. The regulations that cause all new housing to be expensive are also a problem.