Suburbs, good ones with low crime, access to jobs and good schools are desirable. Desirability leads to prices going up. Prices going up leads to property tax revenue going up. That budget going up leads to a higher $/pupil for schools, better infra, etc... Increasing desirability.

So, not a supply problem.

Here's another. Jobs are in cities. People don't like commutes, and value not owning a car if possible. Young people like cities. People go there, causing demand to skyrocket, while companies hire there. Places like NYC and Paris and London are not Houston - unlimited development would ruin the cities. There's no amount of supply that would ever make these cities cheaper. Moreover the land itself is expensive, and the building costs (labor and other costs), so there's a floor to what things should cost.

In every one of these conversations on building, you get these Reddit-style upvoted comments akin to 'it's due to zoning and NIMBYism'.

Newsflash, the world isn't California. The problem of housing costs has a lot of dimensions.

I propose - abolish the property tax paying for schools like in most of the country, and distribute school funds equally at the state level. This would reduce wealth inequality.

Second - let's revisit this return to office idiocy. If I have a million dollar apartment in a city, it's because of my commute, not because I necessarily enjoy or want to be there. More than happy to sell it to someone else who'd enjoy it more (a young person - what cities are for).