My maiden. I agreed with the points made in the 5 comments to Restoring First Home Buyer Afforability. The concept of Population Growth Management doesn't seem to rate a mention and since I left the old mans' farm in the '50's as a kid for the city I couldn't understand why only prime agricultural farmland was only ever marked for development. Australia must have one of the longest (prime real estate)coastlines in the world, perfect for a for a type of development that fell out of favour 40 years ago..ribbon development, make the Pacific Highway one way,clock wise, with sealed & guttered left hand turns off it running only 2 or 3 klm. Ergo all the best arable land is saved. At first reading I thought Wendell Cox would have to be representing some land devlopment group . I live on the Sun Shine Coast, sorry Wendell seems the only tree your barking up are dead ones. I enjoyed your article but disagree with it, sorry to say I have no great insight to offer on this complex problem. regards,

The survey which the author links includes this amusing quote:

"Unfortunately, most of those chiming in on this debate reflect ideological positions of one kind or another rather than investigating the available data and exploring the causal connections in the data more rigorously."

That should dispatch the comments made so far, but I am not so sure it will prevent the consequences of increased oil prices or lost agricultural land close to the cities.

Still, it's a breath of fresh air to find erudite souls like Professor Angel waxing eloquent about their value-free investigations of the data. A Princeton man, for sure. By the way, did you know that the original Ivory Tower is on the Princeton Campus? In the absence of anything more sensible to read, I recommend that you visit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_Tower
for the rest of the story about Ivory Towers:

"In Andrew Hodges' biography of Alan Turing, while discussing Turing's 1936-38 stay at Princeton University, he writes that "[t]he tower of the Graduate College was an exact replica of Magdalen College Oxford, and it was popularly called the Ivory Tower, because of that benefactor of Princeton, the Procter who manufactured Ivory soap." William Cooper Procter (Princeton class of 1883) was a significant supporter of the construction of the Graduate College, and the main dining hall bears the Procter name."

It makes me wonder whether the real estate value of all those tree -studded Princeton campus lawns has changed over the past century, and what their $/ha value might be in these fraught times.

Wendall's reason and logic is cutting through the weeds in the swamp which supports the nimby,selfish,and the greedy lefts mind set.I wonder how many of these so called Australian's would support social and affordable housing construction in their streets? Do I hear a whimper? Can any of these apostles of kindness show that they have made application to deliver housing for someone else except for themselves. Or, as usual, their bandwagon, no development, reduce the population, save the green space(always some others property)really mask their conceited envy,that someone else may build a new home which has a different appeal and their by relegating their abode somewhat outdated, or dare I say obsolete. Now I may be wrong,there may be someone willing to comment on how they have used their funds to supply social and affordable housing for someone else other than themselves! Or is it still rip them down tall poppy cock?

Increasing housing supply is a problem whether the increase is up, out or consolidation within boundaries. It is just plain stupid to bicker about how supplies can be made more affordable or how to reduce collateral damage caused by ever greater numbers of houses being demanded.

The real problem as others have mention is to be found on the demand side (Economics 101 might have something to say about excess demand causing prices to rise might it not Mr Cox?)

Why is that Wendell Cox and so many of his colleagues avoid like the plague the mention of population growth and its role in pushing land prices ever higher?

Dear "Dallas",

Would I support social and affordable housing in my street? I sure would, 'cause I'm a renter, and the new housing would compete with my landlord and help to keep my rent bill down!

And if I ever become a landlord, I'll be pushing for an increased height limit on my lot so that I can supply more affordable housing -- and so that my lot increases in value at other landlords' expense! And when other property owners accuse me of selfishness, I'll point out that my selfishness, unlike theirs, is helping renters.

It seems in Sydney we go from one extreme to the other. We went from unsustainable 1/4 acre blocks to high rise monstronsities. What about medium density housing as a compromise like much of Europe?