This is exactly the perspective of folks that aren't feeling the pain from the housing crisis (and are in fact benefiting from it). >There is a conflict betwee

This is exactly the perspective of folks that aren't feeling the pain from the housing crisis (and are in fact benefiting from it). >There is a conflict between people who want to live in an area and people who don't want that area to become overcrowded Yes. Obviously. >That's the problem statement in a nutshell, and it's unfortunately complex both logistically and emotionally (and therefore politically, too), which is a disastrous combination. This is already a bipartisan issue. You can see folks like Darrell Owens arguing for it on the far-left, Ezra Klein from a moderate-left position, and Chuck Marohn arguing for changes on the right. It's only disastrous if your goal is to preserve the status quo of low density (sub)urban housing in the face of massive inequality in this housing costs. This is a classic scenario of a political minority (non-homeowners) facing a ton of pain that is trivially politically solvable, but not being able to do anything about it unless they become they eventually become the political majority... and now they are. And, more importantly, this scenario is does not lead to mean-reversion. We are in the middle of a political cascade. As the millennials become the dominant voting demographic, we should expect the pendulum to accelerate rapidly in the other direction... and that's exactly what we are seeing. For those homeowners who are suddenly feeling uncomfortable about the political winds on this topic... buckle up. If this is really a cascade (and I think it's obvious that it is), we should expect these changes to accelerate for the foreseeable future. I believe it would be prudent start planning for the changes instead of fighting them.