> Those two things can't be true at the same time. So either of you must be wrong Stakkur is wrong :) > Building exactly as much housing as needed would still

> Those two things can't be true at the same time. So either of you must be wrong Stakkur is wrong :) > Building exactly as much housing as needed would still result in lower prices Yeah don't get me wrong here. Cities still need to allow developers to build. Not building is not the solution and only limits supply and results in price pressure on the poor as we've seen in SF, as when a rental turns over a landlord jacks up the price. My point is simply that private developer is not a panacea since eventually the profit motive stops them from building. For prices to really fall you need a developer to build an over supply of housing, which means continuing to build in an environment where rental prices are falling and building more housing is worsening as an investment idea. You need developers without a profit motive. This means that you need to have a government agency that is constantly building housing to meet a set vacancy target, regardless of whether or not it would be profitable to do so.