And money had nothing to do with the zoning rules, right?

I guess reduce and eliminate are synonyms now?

Ah, you are on the Abundance train.

Yes, with very little regulation I can also build things which are cheap and poor quality. That's not really the argument you think it is.

What's interesting is that no one pushing this solution seems to want to address the money.

Who is suggesting zero vacancy?

Are you just talking with yourself at this point? Am I free to leave?

You've assumed plenty of things about what I've said.

I wasn't speaking about vacation homes, but if we're going to talk about that, yeah, I think they should be taxed pretty high. Having a second home when plenty are struggling with having one is pretty gross.

So when there's been an increase in housing in several cities, why hasn't the cost gone down?

Apartments, townhomes and single family homes have been built en masse all over the US. More housing didn't drive down the housing price.

Desperation is the right climate for change.

I think you've missed the criticism I was making.

I'm saying the issue isn't housing shortage but unused housing which already exists.

Why are you assuming mortgages and investors?

And yet they exist and are able to hold onto livable properties because they don't find it profitable to rent or sell it.

I'm not convinced that the (high) price of housing is caused by a lack of housing. There are plenty of properties which are intentionally kept vacant and unused by the owners because they are treated as an investment.

I want to penalize holding properties like that.

I'm saying that this seems to be going after a symptom rather than the problem.

I'm not talking about people making profit from housing, I'm talking about wealth disparity driving the housing dilemma.

I would want to levy a tax on unoccupied housing.

This seems to be good on the surface, but how is this not an Abundance push?

This doesn't seem to help the biggest problem with housing issues which is moneied interests.