Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

Solution to what exactly? Everyone being able to afford a new or remodeled SFH in a nice safe amenity rich area near jobs and transit and good schools? This is what everyone wants, so there is a lot of competition and this thing everyone wants cannot be made cheaper. Density isn't going to solve the problem with what people really want.
There is no solution to caviar and champagne tastes on a budget of McDonalds. If density is a solution it's already been built where it matters and where it's desirable, which is near jobs, amenities, public transit. You cannot plop a bunch of multifamily condo buildings in residential suburbia with no sidewalks and narrow roads where you cannot park a bunch of cars in front of each .3 or .5 acre lot. First you have to widen the roads which means confiscating part of property from every home's front lawn, build sidewalks, remove wide double driveways many houses have to make more street parking space for the neighboring multifamily, increase height of buildings, because you have to allow for multiple stories and maybe underground garages. More garbage, more noise, because infrastructure doesn't support it, you don't have high-mid rises with underground garages and underground or alley-way garbage collection. . Nobody wants this in CAR DEPENDENT suburbia. these apartments will not sell and will rent only for lower prices because people who like apartment living or don't mind it want walkability and not to suburban strip malls through vast parking lots.

Fairfax County teachers are asking for a 7% raise, like the gravy train hasn't already ended. Yes, I want my home value to decline, and Fairfax to stop handing out candy.

My parents are rich but I am assuming the healthcare industry will be absorbing all that money, probably at the very end of their lives.


THIS! The eldercare industry is designed to take everything you have at the end of your life.

Yep. Just check out how much a CCR facility costs. And they are good at keeping people alive for a LONG time. If you die quickly at home you are one of the lucky ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

Agree with all of this. I'm also sick of hearing people whining about boomers not gifting them a renovated house for far below market value. I'm sick of the boomer-blaming ageism in general (and no, I'm not a boomer).

I don't blame the boomers for selling their homes for top dollar. They only need one buyer to pay that price, and unfortunately due to the lack of inventory, there is a buyer out there. But I do blame the boomers who vote against building new housing because it might affect their home price or boomers who request tax breaks to stay in their homes. Not every boomer is like this, but a lot are!

99% of them are like that lol. Their own kids are priced out in the neighborhood they grew up in. I think part of it is that the retired boomers are just bored to be honest. A lot of them have less than 15 years to live and yet they worry about what their neighborhood will look like in 30 years

And then their kids will inherit their house and millions. I'm a millennial, but I notice that the people who complain most about boomers often have parents who own the $3M house they bought for 5 grapes in 1981 (or whatever the meme is). Ok, congratulations - your family is rich and you'll benefit from the greatest wealth transfer in history in 15-25 years.

My parents are rich but I am assuming the healthcare industry will be absorbing all that money, probably at the very end of their lives.

THIS! The eldercare industry is designed to take everything you have at the end of your life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

Agree with all of this. I'm also sick of hearing people whining about boomers not gifting them a renovated house for far below market value. I'm sick of the boomer-blaming ageism in general (and no, I'm not a boomer).

I don't blame the boomers for selling their homes for top dollar. They only need one buyer to pay that price, and unfortunately due to the lack of inventory, there is a buyer out there. But I do blame the boomers who vote against building new housing because it might affect their home price or boomers who request tax breaks to stay in their homes. Not every boomer is like this, but a lot are!

99% of them are like that lol. Their own kids are priced out in the neighborhood they grew up in. I think part of it is that the retired boomers are just bored to be honest. A lot of them have less than 15 years to live and yet they worry about what their neighborhood will look like in 30 years

And then their kids will inherit their house and millions. I'm a millennial, but I notice that the people who complain most about boomers often have parents who own the $3M house they bought for 5 grapes in 1981 (or whatever the meme is). Ok, congratulations - your family is rich and you'll benefit from the greatest wealth transfer in history in 15-25 years.

My parents are rich but I am assuming the healthcare industry will be absorbing all that money, probably at the very end of their lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

The solution is let actual residents of the communities decide for themselves what they want to do for zoning. They are the people most directly impacted by development decisions. Don’t let large companies and private equity funds lobby the state and federal to override local zoning rules for communities that these (elite) people who profit from destroying neighborhoods don’t event live in.

You can't do this. You have elected representatives that create zoning laws for entire areas because there needs to be flexibility between new development (whether residential or retail) and maintaining existing neighborhoods.

How would you even "let" residents decide for themselves? It would be an administrative nightmare to have to go to every residence in an area for every zoning decision because you can't just say it only applies to large developments...it would apply to literally everything...a liqour license, a neighbor that wants to make an addition to their home, etc.

By community I’m referring to the locality with zoning authority, town, city or county. I’m opposed to the state or federal government overriding local zoning rules. If the voters that live there want to deregulate everything and eliminate zoning that’s fine, but they should not dictate what other localities do with their own zoning rules. State level zoning preemption is just a handout to developers and private equity funds at the expense of local residents.

+1 Anyone pretending to not understand you is being disingenuous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


99% of them are like that lol. Their own kids are priced out in the neighborhood they grew up in. I think part of it is that the retired boomers are just bored to be honest. A lot of them have less than 15 years to live and yet they worry about what their neighborhood will look like in 30 years


And then their kids will inherit their house and millions. I'm a millennial, but I notice that the people who complain most about boomers often have parents who own the $3M house they bought for 5 grapes in 1981 (or whatever the meme is). Ok, congratulations - your family is rich and you'll benefit from the greatest wealth transfer in history in 15-25 years.

I wouldn't be so sure about that "wealth transfer". Estate tax laws can change at any moment and probably will because the US is in plenty of debt and it's not getting better.

Yeah just get congress on that. They’ll fix it real quick!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

The solution is let actual residents of the communities decide for themselves what they want to do for zoning. They are the people most directly impacted by development decisions. Don’t let large companies and private equity funds lobby the state and federal to override local zoning rules for communities that these (elite) people who profit from destroying neighborhoods don’t event live in.

You can't do this. You have elected representatives that create zoning laws for entire areas because there needs to be flexibility between new development (whether residential or retail) and maintaining existing neighborhoods.

How would you even "let" residents decide for themselves? It would be an administrative nightmare to have to go to every residence in an area for every zoning decision because you can't just say it only applies to large developments...it would apply to literally everything...a liqour license, a neighbor that wants to make an addition to their home, etc.

By community I’m referring to the locality with zoning authority, town, city or county. I’m opposed to the state or federal government overriding local zoning rules. If the voters that live there want to deregulate everything and eliminate zoning that’s fine, but they should not dictate what other localities do with their own zoning rules. State level zoning preemption is just a handout to developers and private equity funds at the expense of local residents.

Anonymous wrote:


99% of them are like that lol. Their own kids are priced out in the neighborhood they grew up in. I think part of it is that the retired boomers are just bored to be honest. A lot of them have less than 15 years to live and yet they worry about what their neighborhood will look like in 30 years


And then their kids will inherit their house and millions. I'm a millennial, but I notice that the people who complain most about boomers often have parents who own the $3M house they bought for 5 grapes in 1981 (or whatever the meme is). Ok, congratulations - your family is rich and you'll benefit from the greatest wealth transfer in history in 15-25 years.

I wouldn't be so sure about that "wealth transfer". Estate tax laws can change at any moment and probably will because the US is in plenty of debt and it's not getting better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

Agree with all of this. I'm also sick of hearing people whining about boomers not gifting them a renovated house for far below market value. I'm sick of the boomer-blaming ageism in general (and no, I'm not a boomer).

I don't blame the boomers for selling their homes for top dollar. They only need one buyer to pay that price, and unfortunately due to the lack of inventory, there is a buyer out there. But I do blame the boomers who vote against building new housing because it might affect their home price or boomers who request tax breaks to stay in their homes. Not every boomer is like this, but a lot are!

99% of them are like that lol. Their own kids are priced out in the neighborhood they grew up in. I think part of it is that the retired boomers are just bored to be honest. A lot of them have less than 15 years to live and yet they worry about what their neighborhood will look like in 30 years

And then their kids will inherit their house and millions. I'm a millennial, but I notice that the people who complain most about boomers often have parents who own the $3M house they bought for 5 grapes in 1981 (or whatever the meme is). Ok, congratulations - your family is rich and you'll benefit from the greatest wealth transfer in history in 15-25 years.

Letting residents decide is what has created this mess. But I am sure PP is the one posting that there isn't a housing crisis at all and its all made up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

The solution is let actual residents of the communities decide for themselves what they want to do for zoning. They are the people most directly impacted by development decisions. Don’t let large companies and private equity funds lobby the state and federal to override local zoning rules for communities that these (elite) people who profit from destroying neighborhoods don’t event live in.

You can't do this. You have elected representatives that create zoning laws for entire areas because there needs to be flexibility between new development (whether residential or retail) and maintaining existing neighborhoods.

How would you even "let" residents decide for themselves? It would be an administrative nightmare to have to go to every residence in an area for every zoning decision because you can't just say it only applies to large developments...it would apply to literally everything...a liqour license, a neighbor that wants to make an addition to their home, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

The solution is let actual residents of the communities decide for themselves what they want to do for zoning. They are the people most directly impacted by development decisions. Don’t let large companies and private equity funds lobby the state and federal to override local zoning rules for communities that these (elite) people who profit from destroying neighborhoods don’t event live in.

I think it is well established that actual residents tend to want absolutely nothing to change zoning wise. They're perfectly happy and don't want anything to change (except maybe, paying less property tax).

That is there prerogative. Don’t try to tell other people what communities you don’t live in should look like. Funding for schools and public services are mostly local and their property taxes are paying for these services.

Well, at least you are a proud NIMBY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

The solution is let actual residents of the communities decide for themselves what they want to do for zoning. They are the people most directly impacted by development decisions. Don’t let large companies and private equity funds lobby the state and federal to override local zoning rules for communities that these (elite) people who profit from destroying neighborhoods don’t event live in.

I think it is well established that actual residents tend to want absolutely nothing to change zoning wise. They're perfectly happy and don't want anything to change (except maybe, paying less property tax).

That is there prerogative. Don’t try to tell other people what communities you don’t live in should look like. Funding for schools and public services are mostly local and their property taxes are paying for these services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems weird to expect people who own an asset to hope the value will go down so that someone else can afford to buy it. If housing values drop, some people will be underwater, lose all equity and may be forced to sell. This would benefit you nicely but that other family just lost their home.

It’s similar to the whining as to why boomers aren’t updating their homes AND pricing them as if they aren’t updated, so new buyers get a better deal and hassle free move in ready with HGTV design.

The housing crisis is about basic high density housing and fast, reliable public transit not being available leading people into homelessness or sitting in their car 3-4 hours a day commuting. The housing crisis is NOT you not being able to afford a nice SFH near walkable restaurants, great school district and short commute.

There is no “housing crisis” in the vast majority of areas in the US. This is largely a propaganda campaign by developers to justify eliminating local control over zoning.

Zoning, zoning. This isn't some magic panacea for many reasons. Increasing density isn't going to make single family homes more affordable. In some cases it will make them even less affordable if located in the areas where density is increasing all around but cannot be built in their community due to terrain issues, infrastructure issues, etc. Also when people complain about unaffordable housing and prices they complain about SFH prices primarily, because this is the type of housing majority seems to want to buy. People who love urban living have a lot of condos and TH options to choose which are usually already more abundant. There is no shortage of condos in DC metro. There is no shortage of suburban sprawl homes either. Houses that are expensive and desirable are located in central areas near amenities, transit, jobs, etc, have low crime and nice surroundings. There will always be shortage of this unless population dramatically declines because it's what everyone wants. You cannot make more of it short of building new towns with all these amenities, jobs, transit, etc. You cannot build more quaint residential areas with attractive homes, mature foliage by re-zoning and increasing density, because people will still pay premium for these SFHs, and if they become even more rare due to lots getting zoned for small apartment buildings then their prices will rise even more.

So your solution is do nothing?

The solution is let actual residents of the communities decide for themselves what they want to do for zoning. They are the people most directly impacted by development decisions. Don’t let large companies and private equity funds lobby the state and federal to override local zoning rules for communities that these (elite) people who profit from destroying neighborhoods don’t event live in.

I think it is well established that actual residents tend to want absolutely nothing to change zoning wise. They're perfectly happy and don't want anything to change (except maybe, paying less property tax).