That doesn't make sense. The reduction in new houses being built isn't due to a lack of demand. Housing prices are still incredibly high, if developers could simply build more houses they would be doing that.

This is literally the problem that abundance/YIMBY would solve.

This whole thread, going back to Cassius, has been talking about regulations on housing.

Not on factories. Not even on the standards the housing should be held to.

Just specifically on where it should be allowed to be built.

Obviously you cannot simplify everything down to "all regulations good" or "all regulations bad", that has to be determined on a case by case basis.

Also wtf is the character limit on this website, why do people even put up with that

We're talking about building housing, not factories. There are some zoning laws and environmental regulations that do make sense.

The ones that prevent high density housing being built within cities do not, they are just there to protect house prices while pretending to be about the environment

Worrying about the environmental impacts of zoning is silly, because the alternative is worse.

People have to live somewhere, if they can't get something within public transit distance, they'll go further away and drive.

Zoning doesn't prevent building, it just moves it around and makes it worse

Abundance and rent-control are diametrically opposed.

Abundance is about building more houses in cities.

Rent control effectively stops new housing from being built, because it won't be a good investment.

Now new housing has to be built outside the city. This also makes cities more car focused

Abundance isn't about coming up with new ideas, it's about explaining why some ideas that already exist are good and getting them implemented.

Harris obviously failed to get her policies implemented, so someone else needs to advocate for them.