I don't understand how papers like this get published. The title of the paper seems almost designed to lead you to the wrong conclusion. The paper is about inco

I don't understand how papers like this get published. The title of the paper seems almost designed to lead you to the wrong conclusion. The paper is about income inequality, and it appears to be a meta-study proposing that building more houses won't help a given area reduce inequality. However the main thing people are discussing is pricing, and affordability, as you can note from the citylab subtitle (won’t solve the urban affordability crisis) Building more houses will absolutly help the urban affordability crisis, as the paper claims if you were to build more housing in San Fransicsco obviously it would be occupied by high paid tech workers, that doesn't mean it didn't make the situation better for everyone as all those people who are not living in the upzoned houses didn't go bid up the existing housing stock. Right now California is estimated to have a four million housing unit shortage, doing a study about a few hundred units built and then claiming it didn't help anything is beyond dishonest. Also the paper ends not with a solution, but with saying we should not try to build near transit. It really reads to me like the authors decided they didn't like the propsed legislation for upzoning so they picked a bunch of data that supported their views and cobbled together a paper.