The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

Luxury vs “affordable” and how supply works

• Many comments start from lived experience: new construction is mostly “luxury” units, often with low occupancy; people doubt this helps affordability until owners are forced to sell or cut rents.
• Others argue “luxury” is largely a marketing label for “new”; new units house higher‑income renters, who vacate older stock, which then filters down in price. When total supply is constrained, even old, low‑quality units command “luxury” rents.
• Several examples (Bozeman, Denver, Austin, some Canadian cities) are cited where large amounts of new market‑rate building have coincided with rent moderation or declines.

Regulation, land, and construction costs

• A strong thread blames land‑use rules: single‑family zoning, height limits, parking minimums, setbacks, long permitting, and CEQA‑style review that let small groups delay or block projects.
• Others emphasize building codes, ADA, energy rules, and safety requirements that raise per‑unit costs and push builders toward larger, higher‑margin homes. Time and soft costs (fees, approvals, inspections) are repeatedly described as decisive.
• Land typically represents a large fraction of total cost; multiple commenters stress “land appreciates, structures depreciate.” Ideas like land‑value tax, heavier taxation of underused land, and preferential tax treatment for multifamily recur.

Investors, monopoly power, and antitrust

• One camp sees wealth inequality and financialization (institutional buyers, second homes, Airbnbs, RealPage‑style rent algorithms) as central drivers: rich owners can hold units vacant, treat housing as a financial asset, and bid up prices.
• Others push back: investor‑owned vacant units are claimed to be a tiny share in most markets; collusion only works when supply is already very tight, so increasing supply still undercuts it.
• The specific “builder oligopoly” story in Dallas is heavily contested. Some accept Thompson’s point that concentration metrics and profit data don’t show classic monopoly behavior; others argue he cherry‑picked, misread, or misrepresented sources.

YIMBY vs NIMBY and intra‑left conflict

• Many agree that local NIMBY politics—often older, established homeowners—are the most direct brake on housing, across both “blue” and “red” areas.
• A big sub‑debate is whether the “antitrust left” or “abundance” camp is misdiagnosing the problem:
  • Abundance advocates emphasize zoning/permit reform and see public housing as additive.
  • Critics see “abundance” as a neoliberal rebrand that downplays corporate power and wealth concentration, and attacks left critics more than the right.

Journalism and methodology

• Several commenters praise the basic act of calling cited researchers and checking claims, contrasting it with opinion‑heavy or press‑release‑driven coverage.
• Others argue Thompson’s piece itself is selective, turns a complex debate into “he said, she said,” and illustrates how well‑packaged narratives can mislead even when they rest on real interviews.