at a local level, lots of activists believe “we” don’t need more housing, new housing should be built elsewhere. and yeah, somw of those activists suggest even elsewhere no new housing is needed, after all fading Nebraska towns have plenty of vacancy. 1/

but that’s a group motivated fundamentally by “protecting” their locality from new housing. broadly, the policy community, across most spectrums, acknowledges that more housing is necessary if we mean to relieve the incredible stress housing now imposes on American lives. 2/

the claim that social housing requires land-use reform too is mostly a kind of misdirection. it might, but not the same land-use reform sought after to make it easier for private parties to build in settled neighborhoods over local opposition. 3/

one of the main reasons to promote social housing is to promote the development of new districts, neighborhoods, microcities, in places that are not already settled, established, desirable. 4/

that just involves an entirely different set of problems than disinheriting neighbors of their capacity to block development to which they object. 5/

the (yglesian) claim that social housing requires the same reforms as infill in sought after neighborhoods is both false and disingenuous, a way of pretending there is no alternative to existing (imho largely misguided) YIMBY tactics proponents of social housing can advocate. /fin