Disagree. The refusal to build any new homes where people want to live is creating huge problems for all of society: it prevents people from starting families, it's massive wasted economic opportunity whenever people can't move to where they'd be most efficient, and it shunts tons of investment dollars into the pockets of landlords instead of providing useful value. It's an existential threat to the country.
At some point it has to be treated as a negative externality like pollution, and the people responsible for it need to pay their fair share of these externality costs.
> At some point it has to be treated as a negative externality like pollution, and the people responsible for it need to pay their fair share of these externality costs.
I disagree strongly with categorizing it as an externality. But ignoring that, what you're actually arguing is that nobody can ever own a home that they can rely on being a home for the rest of their lives. Unless you're into real estate investing, this cuts out the one real advantage to owning a home and allows something you purportedly own to be legally stolen from you.
At some point it has to be treated as a negative externality like pollution, and the people responsible for it need to pay their fair share of these externality costs.