It's the land, stupid: How the homebuilder cartel drives high housing prices

Causes of High Housing Prices

• Many argue land and homebuilder consolidation are only part of the story; demand, cheap credit (pre‑rate hikes), and Wall Street–style finance are also blamed.
• Others reject “demand + cheap credit” as too unfalsifiable to explain specific outcomes, especially since prices kept rising even after rates tripled from historic lows.
• Some insist the main drivers are zoning, permitting delays, and local political resistance rather than builder cartels.

Big Homebuilders, Land Hoarding, and Competition

• Several commenters doubt that large builders intentionally limit construction; they’d earn more by building if approvals and labor were available.
• Others describe land speculators and developers sitting on lots with negligible taxes, arguing this behavior meaningfully constrains supply.
• One thread corrects the article’s DR Horton stats and notes profits per unit rose, but not as dramatically as implied.
• A builder-side perspective stresses thin margins for small builders and says growing regulatory complexity has pushed them out, unintentionally favoring large firms.

Zoning, NIMBYism, and Local Power

• Strong consensus that local NIMBY homeowner “cartels” use zoning and process to block density, apartments, and even schools, to preserve neighborhood character, low traffic, and school quality.
• Debate over whether current residents should dominate land‑use decisions versus higher‑level (state/federal) standards that prevent each city from blocking growth and externalizing housing shortages.

Land Tax and Georgism Ideas

• Multiple comments advocate land value taxes or sharply higher taxes on vacant/underused land near urban areas to penalize speculation and force productive use.
• Others worry this resembles taxing unrealized gains or could crush SFH owners if taxed as if zoned for higher density.
• There is discussion of separating land tax from improvements so better buildings don’t raise tax bills.

Urban vs Rural, Density, and Amenities

• Disagreement over whether “there’s plenty of land”: raw land without utilities, services, and jobs is seen as effectively unusable for large-scale housing.
• Many defend dense urban living (walkability, health, lower emissions); others strongly prefer quieter suburbs and oppose increased density near them, especially due to traffic, noise, and school strain.
• Food deserts, both rural and urban, are cited as evidence that markets do not automatically provide services even when residents exist.

Remote Work and Migration

• Some see remote work as a key “fix,” enabling people to move to cheaper areas; links are provided claiming movement toward more affordable regions and smaller cities.
• Others argue most remote workers still cluster in or near desirable metros, not “the middle of nowhere,” and that small numbers of high earners can’t revive struggling rural towns.

Broader Systemic Critiques

• Several commenters frame land hoarding and rent extraction as a feature of capitalism, not a bug, and doubt politically realistic reform.
• Proposed systemic fixes include banning exclusive single‑family zoning, taxing second/investment homes more heavily, reducing road subsidies for sprawl, and massively improving transit.