I'm from the camp that believes that if I want to have a boarder in my house then it is my decision. A man's property should be his decision to do what he wants with it. If I wanted to build a casino in any town in America that should be my right but no, we have to ask permission from the government to do anything. When will we elect a government like we had during the 19th century? We've been massively screwed up since 1913.

The whole so-called profession of urban planning is a cartel run by existing property owners to keep the prices of real estate, and especially homes, as high as possible by creating an artificial shortage of it. These gains come at the expense of people who own unbuilt land, as well as of people trying to obtain homes. (And the taxpaying public, since park and open-space districts are part of the planning machine.)

Like the problem of the federal government grabbing up most of the land in western states, I don't see very many legal methods to fight back against this menace. Most plans for "Gulch" style communities begin with buying up the land. But if legal title is not available, how do we create moral title, much less defend it? A brainstorming session on these questions might prove useful.

The gross building department regulations. Between inspections, and inspectors bent on being power hungry, its a mess.

Two examples from building a house in Las Vegas:

I was forced to put in three in-floor electrical outlets at $150 each including labor right in front of a picture window that I would never put furniture or electrical items in front of.

I was forced to redo all the can light wiring that I installed because there was a loop of extra wire that I specifically put between the can itself and the last wire staple. The regulation said there could be no slack. I put the slack in there so that if there was a problem with the can light, I could more easily repair it.

Useless regulation, resulting in rework and re-inspection.

After living in the house for 4 years, an inspector decided that the septic tank system that THEY had approved earlier before it was installed- was TOO SMALL. It was 2000 gal capacity, and they wanted 2200 gal capacity. It cost me $20,000 to tear it up, have it sanitized and removed, and a new larger septic tank installed.

You can bet i want to recoup my $20,000 when I sell the house.

The casual assumption in the article that government subsidies are a legitimate part of building is appalling. If the government has to subsidize it, it's not affordable, no matter how much it costs to rent -- the renter isn't really affording it.

In the UK, it is very difficult to obtain planning permission to build any house, unless you "know someone" on the planning council, or engage a lawyer who does. That is the main way housing supply is restricted, which keeps prices high.
Most government programs to increase home ownership focus on helping people afford their expensive house, never on increasing supply so that prices come down. Drop in prices would cost too many votes.

I guess it has nothing to do with the banksters artificially driving up real estate prices to save their sorry looting asses from bankruptcy.
No, that would never happen.

Obama is bragging about creating 18 million jobs...90% of which are minimum wage part-time jobs...7 million full-time high wage jobs have been destroyed during his rule...Hillarybeast will continue with the grand redo...

What is "affordable?"
Some years ago, the government made purchasing houses very easy. People who should have bought $100K houses, bought $150K houses and after a few years of not being able to afford the payment, defaulted. In the past it was advised to keep a mortgage because the falling value of money would make the payments cheaper and falling interest rates would make it still more advantageous. But then, taxes, fees, HOA dues, insurance costs made that advice fallacious. The rising cost of everything and the stagnation of income has caused people to re-think the old American dream of the house, the car, 2.4 children and a dog.

blarman, this is a post that is tangential to yours -not directly on point. https://veksler.liberty.me/how-to-mak...

"Affordable" housing is simple to achieve. All it takes is for the "oh-so-concerned" crowd to sell their home(s) for half of the appraised value. Oh wait, you mean the "oh-so-concerned" crowd wants someone else to pay for it. My mistake.

As witnessed during my 64000 years on this planet, there was a drive by government to corral poor people into our cities only to have to rebuild these housing units because no one took care of them.
I would add few more problems ...union wages and regulation on licenses plumbers, electricians and everyone else in the construction industry.

"Government did away with this source of cheap housing "
Just as with other things the gov't did away with (drugs, sex trade, undocumented workers), people who want a room to rent can still find one.

I have a feeling that "affordable housing" wa on Rand's mind some of the time. One of her major protagonists (Howard Roark, "The Fountainhead) discusses the difficulty and problems associated with t. he states "I've always wanted to solve this problem" and multiple other comments with the book.
It was difficult when she wrote the book and is even more difficult now with realestate prices being what they are, even after the bubble burst.