The solution is hard because existing property owners have more rights, incentives, and skin in the game then potential residents.
To be fair though "existing property owners" would also include people who own land in low-density-zoned areas and would like to build high-density housing on their property, but are prevented from doing so by neighboring property owners. It seems like their rights are also being infringed upon, no?
Yes, there is a social contract that ends up codified into zoning/code, but that is governed by local government, which is governed by local property owners.
EDIT @ closeparen: I'm really sorry to hear that you feel that me supporting property rights are cartoon villainy. They are the foundation of modern civilization unfortunately.
EDIT 2: > What you're really talking about here is the political power over others that's embedded in property rights. This power is ultimately delegated to property owners by states, and the correct response (and what we're starting to see in CA) is the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large.
You're suggesting subverting democracy. Again, in violation with a democracy that is the foundation of modern civilization. To deprive someone of living in your own home is not a violation of their rights. Socialism I can support, but not communism (ie "the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large").
If we want to regulate population growth, fine. But we will have to start rationing birth the way we ration condos if it's really so important to us to avoid the scourge of homes.
EDIT: supporting property rights would be supporting the rights of property owners to build on their land. What you're really talking about here is the political power over others that's embedded in property rights. This power is ultimately delegated to property owners by states, and the correct response (and what we're starting to see in CA) is the state seizing that power away from property owners and granting it to the population at large.
If you don't want to a skyscraper built on your land, don't sell your land.
Your neighbor's land isn't "your own home," it's his.
>You're suggesting subverting democracy.
Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government).
>the foundation of modern civilization
Single-family-home zoning, FAR, parking minimums, sunlight plane, height limits, etc. have barely been around 100 years. Laws dictating that all places must look like modern American suburbs are certainly not "the foundation of modern civilization."
Well, this law is proposed by state government (democracy).
> Subverting a council of the landowning aristocracy (local city govt) with a democracy (state government).
I wouldnt be surprised if a measure like this ends up unconstitutional (no idea about nz constitution)
I'd argue that if a person can no longer reasonably expect to buy a house in their own country then they're being deprived of their rights and that this is a more significant loss than others losing their "rights" to tax free profit from their property speculations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand
The government can always come in an and kick you out. They can raise property taxes to 100% of the house value. It is within their capacity.
The problem is hard because existing property owners have more rights, but those without have plenty of incentive and skin in the game too, as the overall cost of never owning a home is significant. Arguably the property owners should have less rights than they do when those rights are causing significant hardship and economic damage, which is the case.
It sure doesn't feel that way in the UK where noone seems to be able to stop every green space being turned into "luxury executive apartments".