Like another comment here mentioned, housing is complicated. People don't want to live in a random house in the middle of nowhere ('roof over your head'). Some people prefer to be homeless on the street versus getting to a roof over their head that they don't like.
People want to live where they want to live (near family, jobs, culture etc)
Take NYC for instance. Politicians try to address the NYC housing crisis from a demand/cost perspective. Rent is too high? Let's just screw the property owner and cap the rent. Or let's just raise minimum wage to make it easier for people to live in those properties.
The result in both cases: you didn't have enough housing before, you don't have enough housing now. You give more money to people, rents will just go up. You cap the rent, there's still a huge number of people that can't live where they want and you make it impossible for existing tenants to move (or for new/more development to be built, for that matter)
So, what instead? You want to build more housing in NYC? Great, that should work. But you have to make it cheap. Deregulate construction, get rid of unions, prioritize developer rights over tenant or homeowner rights. What? You don't think these are good things? Okay, but then you'll have to sit back and watch new construction trickle in and result in 'luxury' housing because that's the only way a developer can recoup their enormous land acquisition, regulation and construction costs.
So the challenge with housing is that it requires fundamentally difficult decisions. To pretend that you can just spend 100 billion (or even a trillion) and the problem will be solved and people will be happy, is an illusion.
People want to live where they want to live (near family, jobs, culture etc)
Take NYC for instance. Politicians try to address the NYC housing crisis from a demand/cost perspective. Rent is too high? Let's just screw the property owner and cap the rent. Or let's just raise minimum wage to make it easier for people to live in those properties.
The result in both cases: you didn't have enough housing before, you don't have enough housing now. You give more money to people, rents will just go up. You cap the rent, there's still a huge number of people that can't live where they want and you make it impossible for existing tenants to move (or for new/more development to be built, for that matter)
So, what instead? You want to build more housing in NYC? Great, that should work. But you have to make it cheap. Deregulate construction, get rid of unions, prioritize developer rights over tenant or homeowner rights. What? You don't think these are good things? Okay, but then you'll have to sit back and watch new construction trickle in and result in 'luxury' housing because that's the only way a developer can recoup their enormous land acquisition, regulation and construction costs. So the challenge with housing is that it requires fundamentally difficult decisions. To pretend that you can just spend 100 billion (or even a trillion) and the problem will be solved and people will be happy, is an illusion.