In this piece, however, I’m more interested in the costs of growth management. The main one is affordability; when governments draw lines where growth can and cannot go, it reduces the supply of buildable land, and thus also the supply of housing.
This assumes that demand is for housing in a specific city is inelastic, but does not offer any evidence that is the case. If there is some elasticity of demand then demand tapers off as prices increase, which means growth management is achieving precisely what it set out to achieve, mainly "Fuck off, we're full."
> In this piece, however, I’m more interested in the costs of growth management. The main one is affordability; when governments draw lines where growth can and cannot go, it reduces the supply of buildable land, and thus also the supply of housing.
This assumes that demand is for housing in a specific city is inelastic, but does not offer any evidence that is the case. If there is some elasticity of demand then demand tapers off as prices increase, which means growth management is achieving precisely what it set out to achieve, mainly "Fuck off, we're full."
(post is archived)