In absolute terms there would almost assuredly be more homes than less in that scenario - thereby putting downward pressure on housing costs, not upward. This i

In absolute terms there would almost assuredly be more homes than less in that scenario - thereby putting downward pressure on housing costs, not upward. This is Economics. Moreover - there is no real competition for land (specific plots and waterside aside). Even in Vermont's largest urban area (Burlington) you can literally go one kilometre in any direction and find tons of open space, even you go a few more, it's empty. Developers can go almost anywhere - if one spot taken, you can literally walk in almost any direction and find suitable land. Which is at least partly why places like Vermont have average home prices of $192K and California (mostly urban) has average home prices of nearly double that. [1][2] In light of the basic economics here, the parent commenter has the onus to prove his more cynical position that this is 'all some kind of evil rent ploy'. Because it's not, and if it were, it would be the dumbest ploy ever, because there's no surplus control or surplus capture. People can build next door to move outside of the supposed economic control. [1] https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/vt/home-values/ [2] https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article13255952.html https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article132559...