At the macro level, landlords and property owners stand on one side opposed to developers on the other. Developers are incentivized to add housing supply and th

At the macro level, landlords and property owners stand on one side opposed to developers on the other. Developers are incentivized to add housing supply and the others are incentivized to secure it against competition. Tenants _should_ stand on the side of developers but I’m not sure that’s true in general, given the anti-developer sentiment in some of most dense and progressive cities in America. It’s zoning, it’s environmental review, it’s historic/landmark review, it’s good neighbor agreements, it’s disorganized and/or corrupt permitting departments, etc. All of this gets weaponized against new supply. Ultimately. City electeds answer to voters, not builders, so they get the government they deserve. Some places are building, adding supply, and consequently lowering prices. Austin is a prime example. From JosephPolitano on X: Last year, Austin MSA (population: 2.4M) permitted 21,300 units worth of 5+ unit apartment buildings—more than LA (pop: 12.8M) and SF (pop: 4.6M) combined. San Francisco permitted 1,151 housing units over the last 15 months. Austin permitted 1,248 in January alone. Austin averages 28+ units per day this year. San Francisco has allowed 15 units total in all of 2024.