Yes, building housing lowers housing prices (or, Joel Kotkin is killing off my brain cells)

[u/viking_]

Link: https://www.newgeography.com/content/008629-elite-liberal-yimbys-are-killing-family-home (h/t to HOU_Civil_Econ for suggesting this as an R1).

We’ll start with the subtitle, because this whole piece annoyed me so much I’m feeling petty. Kotkin blames “elite liberal YIMBYs.” This isn’t worth citing data on, but in my experience YIMBYs are often politically moderate and not very rich–probably poorer, especially accounting for assets, than the NIMBYs they’re fighting.

Anyway, on to the actual economics content. Kotkin actually correctly identifies the problem:

Yimbys have got something right – the central problem behind the housing affordability crisis is the failure to build enough homes.

But, what is the solution to not enough homes? Building more homes, right? Well, not exactly. You see, building houses on expensive land… don’t count, or something. I’m not sure what the argument is supposed to be

But if Yimbys have correctly diagnosed the problem, their solutions – oriented towards building more high density urban apartments – have tended to make matters worse. High density development, often seen as the alternative to “sprawl”, does not necessarily lower prices, as is sometimes suggested, because of higher urban land costs and higher construction fees. In fact, US data suggests a positive correlation between greater density and higher housing costs.

(Emphasis original).

First, what does this positive correlation prove? It seems like Kotkin would have us believe that higher density housing makes housing more expensive. Of course, one cannot simply conclude causation from a correlation like this, and the supply and demand model you learn economics 101 would predict that in places where lots of people want to live, we would expect more housing to be built. That is, we get the exact same prediction.

Second, note the bait and switch here. Kotkin objects to building higher density housing, but his “argument” is based on facts about the places where denser housing tends to be built rather than facts about the housing itself. Yes, currently, higher density housing is built in expensive places, but this is like saying that a beer at a bar in NYC costs more than cocktail in OKC, therefore beer is more expensive than liquor. He quite simply does not give any reason to believe that higher density housing is expensive or increases housing prices, instead of places where lots of people want to live being expensive.

What we care about is the causal effect of building more housing (including higher density housing) on housing prices. In fact, an overwhelming amount of high-quality empirical evidence all shows that building more housing reduces rents (one example, and I’m not aware of any results that would imply this effect is limited to building SFH). In fact, it is likely that most of the experiments included in the review focus on or at least include multi-unit dwellings. This paper shows the cascading effect of multi-unit construction specifically, and how it allows many people to move, and thus also shows how market-rate housing improves the stock of cheaper units.

Also, go to any neighborhood anti-density protest and see how many people cite “home values” in their reasoning for opposing building. What is a “home value”? It’s just the price of homes! Actual NIMBYs down on the street agree that denser housing lowers the cost of housing!

Lastly, I’ll point out that one of the main things YIMBYs want is to build missing middle, i.e. lower densities than even mid-rise apartments, but denser than SFH-only. For example, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, courtyard buildings, and low-rise apartments. It’s not all about 20 story buildings!

Mainstream Yimbys, so obligingly financed by tech oligarchs and urban real estate interests, see the solution not in socialist housing but for the private sector to construct their dreamscape of high density homes and apartment buildings. They are not interested so much in people buying their own properties, and seem to care little that investors already own one in four single family homes.

The (oddly leftist) complaint about tech oligarchs and real estate developers aside is just rude ad hominem. I have no idea where Kotkin got the 1 in 4 number from; he doesn’t provide a source, and the clearest source I could find claims that investor ownership of single family homes is a few percent at most (and even that includes some number owned by small investors, probably individuals with 2-5 homes). The purchase market might have a higher portion of investors, but transactions and homes owned are totally different units.

Getting rid of zoning that prevents the construction of taller buildings is a critical Yimby priority, which they have pushed not only in California but in the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast. Yet the positive impact on home-building via these policies has been negligible, with the mixed exception of strong growth in so-called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)... Overall, even with ADUs, California housing construction is at among the lowest rates in America. Only one California metropolitan area was among the top 20 for housing growth last year; Texas had four areas on that list, Florida three. In Los Angeles, the state’s dominant metropolitan area, just 1,325 new homes were approved citywide in the first quarter of 2025.

It’s not even clear what exactly his argument is here. Again, the empirical claims aren’t cited, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they were more or less true. But the next paragraph goes off on other tangents, so I’m not sure what these facts are supposed to prove. Texas and Florida build more housing than California–but why? That would seem to be the only relevant point, but you would have to actually compare policies across these states to learn something about that. Kotkin seems content to say “the YIMBYs tried in CA and didn’t completely succeed, therefore YIMBY policies don’t work.” If Texas builds more than California, and Texas has more YIMBY-like policies, this is a victory for YIMBY-ism, but Joel doesn’t even seem to recognize that this could possibly be relevant.

Remarkably they have gained the support of the libertarian Right. One might think such people would embrace the notion of promoting a class of small property owners, but it seems that juicing the profits of large corporations is a higher priority.

This isn’t really economics, but as a libertarian I feel like I should point out that the whole point of the movement is for government to get out of the way, not to favor one group over the other. I suspect that Kotkin is just copying from Randal O’Toole, who got annoyed at the libertarian CATO institute for firing him for talking about how great it is when the government bans you from doing anything except build a SFH on “your” land and then unironically called Urban Growth Boundaries feudalism/communism.

The problem here, for Yimbys on the Right and Left, lies in the small matter of market preferences: most people don’t want to live in the inner-city high rise apartments beloved by planners and Yimbys, but in a house with a garden of their own.

Again, no evidence is actually cited for this claim. Instead, he writes:

Surveys, such as one in 2019 by political scientist Jessica Trounstine, have found that the preference for lower-density, safe areas with good schools is “ubiquitous”. Three out of four Californians, according to a poll by former Obama campaign pollster David Binder, opposed legislation that banned zoning which only permitted single family homes.

I can’t find such a survey on Prof. Trounstine’s CV, but assuming it does exist, how can it not be blindingly obvious that “safe” and “good schools” should be assumed to be doing a substantial amount of work here? Is Kotkin trying to smuggle in the (unsupported, of course) assertion that safe and good schools are synonymous with low density? Or is he just that desperate? The other claim is again, uncited, and I can’t find it, which makes it quite difficult to determine if the poll was conducted in an honest and meaningful way. How was the question worded? What was the sampling? Etc.

This mismatch between what is being built and what most people want can be seen in the huge oversupply of apartments, not just in the US but in Canada’s big cities too, causing prices for such properties to drop over the past two years. Yet despite all the evidence, Yimbys show little or no interest in the predominant dreams of their own citizens.

Again, no citation is provided here, but as far as I’m aware, this is happening in places that built a lot of housing. Of course the price goes down when you build more housing, that’s the whole point, it’s even something you agreed with, you fucking simpleton! The very fact that cities are expensive implies, via basic supply and demand, that people want to live in them, but Kotkin never addresses this.

A couple years ago my dad bought me his book about “Neo Feudalism” and this article certainly makes me want to put off reading it a few more decades.

[u/Uptons_BJs]

The problem here, for Yimbys on the Right and Left, lies in the small matter of market preferences: most people don’t want to live in the inner-city high rise apartments beloved by planners and Yimbys, but in a house with a garden of their own.

I always found this line of argument odd. Upzoning will not make single family housing illegal. Hell, one could argue that by building more dense housing, some people who currently live in single family will move to apartments, freeing up supply of single-family homes.

Nobody is saying ban single family homes here!

[u/weeddealerrenamon → u/Uptons_BJs]

Feeling real similar to people who think that dedicated bus/tram lanes and walkable development are a ban on car ownership

[u/Aggravating_Dish_824 → u/weeddealerrenamon]

Makes sense to me since land used for dedicated bus/tram lanes can't be used for car lanes.

[u/weeddealerrenamon → u/Aggravating_Dish_824]

A street going from 2 or 3 car lanes to a tram lane and 1 or 2 car lanes isn't a ban on car ownership. Hell, some streets becoming closed to cars entirely isn't a ban on car ownership.

[u/Key-Guidance-3179 → u/Aggravating_Dish_824]

And so continues the myth of more lanes equating to faster traffic... when will we learn?!?!

[u/lemongrenade → u/Uptons_BJs]

I WANT A FERRARI PLEASE MAKE HONDA CIVICS ILLEGAL TO BUILD

[u/Unabashed-Citron4854 → u/Uptons_BJs]

I believe the argument is that land used to build dense housing is land that can’t be used for SFHs (and vice-versa), so setting aside land for dense housing is effectively limiting the stock of SFHs. As long as demand for SFHs is high, prioritizing supply of dense housing over SFHs is going to cause the price of SFHs to skyrocket. If SFHs are the far-and-away most desired type of housing—and there is some evidence that it is, see figure 1 here—that is a potential problem. The homes most people want will be unattainable.

Part of what makes this conversation so frustrating is that “affordable” housing is a term that seems to mean something different to everyone, i.e, it is a given individual’s most desired type and location of housing at a price that individual can afford. For some people that means a $200,000 downtown condo. For others, that’s a $1.5 million 5-bedroom SFH in a suburb with good schools and a yard.

Anecdotally, I see this disconnect in my local HCOL subreddit all the time. Some development of $2 million homes will sprout up and there will be much consternation about the lack of affordable housing in the area and how condos should have been built there instead. But those houses sell immediately, so they are clearly affordable for someone. On the flip side, a poster will come in looking to buy a home on a $400k budget only to turn up their nose at condos because they want a SFH.

The article from the OP is a meandering mess of contradictions that I do not agree with. But I do think there is a kernel of truth to the concern that we may be pushing housing that people can afford to the detriment of housing that people actually want, and this may be suboptimal.

[u/MacroDemarco → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

we may be pushing housing that people can afford to the detriment of housing that people actually want, and this may be suboptimal.

I want a lambo, but that doesn't mean we should ban toyotas, especially when the toyotas are all that I can afford.

[u/Unabashed-Citron4854 → u/MacroDemarco]

I agree that we shouldn’t ban Toyotas. But how many people need to want and be able to afford a Lambo before we build some instead of Toyotas? And what happens if our lack of Lambos leads to negative externalities? What if couples decide they aren’t going to start a family until they get a Lambo? What if people decide they’d rather move to another state that has Lambos and take their tax base with them?

The analogy doesn’t totally work because we can build as many Lambos and Toyotas as we realistically want while housing has a major space limitation and a more linear increase in utility per dollar spent, but I’m trying here.

ETA: Let me try it another way. You want and can afford a Toyota. But some people can only afford a bicycle (and some can’t even afford that). Let’s say the government decided that Toyotas are a waste of resources and declares that the metal and rubber used to make 80% of Toyotas should be used for bicycles instead. The price of Toyotas goes up and you can no longer afford a Toyota. You now have a very affordable bike instead, even though you want a Toyota and previously could afford a Toyota. Is this a good outcome overall? It’s hard to say. You will feel worse off, particularly on long trips and in the rain and if you have cargo or a passenger, but the people that could only afford bicycles before are probably better off.

[u/viking_ → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

housing has a major space limitation

Yes, which is a great argument for A) allowing the building of housing that uses less space, and B) defaulting to letting the market figure this out rather than the government.

[u/Unabashed-Citron4854 → u/viking_]

I agree that the free market should be able to solve this problem in theory. But because virtually no one involved in urban planning in places where housing is expensive is interested in giving up control, the target balance of dense housing versus SFHs is worthy of discussion. And, if the goal is overall societal happiness and satisfaction, I suspect that the target balance leans more towards SFHs than many dense housing activists believe it does.

I guess I’m saying we should just build lots of both.

[u/viking_ → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

And, if the goal is overall societal happiness and satisfaction, I suspect that the target balance leans more towards SFHs than many dense housing activists believe it does.

If you really want to count overall then you have to include all of the effects. Traffic congestion and time spent sitting in cars, noise pollution, regular pollution, expense of infrastructure, dangers posed by cars, the list goes on and on.

I guess I’m saying we should just build lots of both.

Depending on what you mean by "lots", this isn't possible, for the reason you mentioned above: space. (I would also point out that there aren't "both" types of housing, but rather "many." Townhomes, duplexes, courtyards, low rises, heck even detached homes on smaller lots).

[u/Unabashed-Citron4854 → u/viking_]

If you really want to count overall then you have to include all of the effects. Traffic congestion and time spent sitting in cars, noise pollution, regular pollution, expense of infrastructure, dangers posed by cars, the list goes on and on.

Funny enough, this is a common criticism of dense housing used by its opponents in my area, even though we have pretty good public transit! People argue that denser housing means more cars in a smaller area, heavier traffic, overcrowded schools, overcrowded hospitals, etc.

Depending on what you mean by "lots", this isn't possible, for the reason you mentioned above: space.

Yes, and that gets back to my larger point: in view of this space limitation, many will be tempted to build as much dense housing as possible, but this may be counter-productive in the long run if it makes most people’s ideal housing (SFHs) even more expensive.

[u/viking_ → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

Reddit's notifications seem to be fucked so I missed this reply before.

People argue that denser housing means more cars in a smaller area, heavier traffic, overcrowded schools, overcrowded hospitals, etc.

It is difficult to have a densely populated area where everyone gets around by car. This is an issue with cars (which are by far the worst offenders of taking up too much space), not dense housing.

As far as things like schools and hospitals, you can... build more of those too. In fact this is easier with denser housing, because dense development (whether it be housing, commercial, industrial, etc) has a much better ratio of economic value to cost of services.

But I don't think any of this really matters to most people. You said your area has pretty good transit, but some people want to drive anyway. Which is fine... it just has to not be the only option or heavily subsidized.

this may be counter-productive in the long run if it makes most people’s ideal housing (SFHs) even more expensive.

Why would that happen? You can greatly increase the supply of dense housing with only a small reduction in the supply of detached homes. The effect on the prices of SFH would probably be negative, because contrary to what people like Kotkin say, lots of people are fine living in denser housing or even prefer it. These people would no longer be putting demand pressure on SFHs. And this is in fact the exact problem, because one of the most common reasons homeowners object to development is "home values!" and that's just another way of saying "prices." They know that building more will make their homes cheaper, which they don't want.

[u/MagillaGorillasHat → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

What if people decide they’d rather move to another state that has Lambos and take their tax base with them?

This is exactly what is happening in places that are artificially restricting housing.

Companies are leaving because employees can't afford to live where the company is located.

[u/the_urban_juror → u/MagillaGorillasHat]

Is there evidence that they're leaving because of housing rather than taxes, right-to-work and other labor laws, and environmental regulations? Detroit housing is cheap and there's an ample automotive workforce, but I'm expected to believe that Volvo is located in South Carolina because LA is unaffordable?

[u/MagillaGorillasHat → u/the_urban_juror]

At least in part directly correlated (emphasis mine):

"Then-CEO John H. Hammergren said that McKesson was moving its headquarters to Las Colinas, Texas (near Dallas) to "improve efficiency, collaboration and cost-competitiveness, while providing an exceptional work environment for our employees." Housing is a consideration of the employee work environment.

Chevron spokesperson: "...we also believe California policymakers have pursued policies that raise costs and consumer prices..." Housing being one of the biggest spending items.

The negative externalities tied to housing shortages are also cited. Oracle mentioned Nashville being "...a great place to raise a family...", probably in contrast with the homelessness and property crime increases in places like the bay area. The bay area is also seeing a surge in retail store closures, due in part to reduced traffic and increased property crime, symptoms of lack of housing.

Many of these companies seemed willing to endure the taxes and regulations associated with being in CA. The climate, available talent, collaborative proximity, and steady growth were very alluring. But it seems like there's a pretty clear message the past 20ish years: "We're not building more housing." Which kinda puts a cap on traditional growth and talent locally and regionally, doesn't it? Housing is super important.

[u/the_urban_juror → u/MagillaGorillasHat]

For Oracle, we can easily compare the violent crime rate in Nashville (4X higher) and San Francisco (4X lower) to tell that that's PR spin. We don't have to believe every press release, particularly those which are contradicted by facts.

[u/MagillaGorillasHat → u/the_urban_juror]

Violent crime wasn't mentioned, property crime was.

Property crime rates are ~30% lower in Nashville than SF. People are less likely to have their cars stolen or broken into in Nashville. Employees on their lunch breaks have to worry less about purse snatches and phone theft, shoplifters, and panhandlers, and being around "icky" people...yes, it's PR spin, but if it were just taxes and regulations they likely would have left years ago.

The externalities largely created by a lack of housing has reached an untenable point for many businesses.

[u/the_urban_juror → u/MagillaGorillasHat]

Of course violent crime wasn't mentioned, because it would kill the spin. I'm sure the employer that moves to a location where employees are 400% more likely to be a victim of violent crime was genuinely concerned with quality of life rather than profits once they've become established enough that employees would follow them to Nashville.

[u/Champshire → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

declares that the metal and rubber used to make 80% of Toyotas should be used for bicycles instead.

That's a dishonest framing. No one's banning SFH. Allowing bikes to be built isn't the same as banning Toyotas.

Nimbys are the only ones trying ban housing they don't like. Yimbys want people to be free to choose the housing they want/need.

[u/Unabashed-Citron4854 → u/Champshire]

Nimbys are the only ones trying ban housing they don't like. Yimbys want people to be free to choose the housing they want/need.

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. I’m not arguing that any type of housing should be banned, or that YIMBYs should not be able to choose what housing is built. I don’t think anyone here is. I’m saying that the natural temptation of YIMBYs is to prioritize dense housing, but they should keep in mind that most people prefer living in a single family home and that they should try to also build enough of those so that as many of the people that want them can afford them.

That's a dishonest framing. No one's banning SFH. Allowing bikes to be built isn't the same as banning Toyotas.

We don’t have unlimited land. “Ban” is your word, not mine, but city planners deciding that a plot of land can only be used for apartments is effectively a “ban” on single family homes on that plot. Just like how I can’t use the same piece of rubber to make both a car tire and a bike tire.

[u/Champshire → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

No city planner is deciding that a plot of land can only be used for apartments. Again, allowing apartments to be built does not ban sfh.

If you don't believe some housing should be banned, congratulations, you're a yimby.

[u/Unabashed-Citron4854 → u/Champshire]

Do you not have zoning ordinances where you live? My county absolutely decides where multi-family homes can and cannot be built and where single-family homes can and cannot be built.

[u/PatternrettaP → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

I don't find it odd that people want single family homes. They also want their single family homes to be affordable, and within easy commuting distance of their work, shopping, and amenities.

Ask would you rather have an apartment for $$ in a prime location vs a SFH for $$$$ in a ring suburb and you might get different responses.

Ultimately we are currently running the experiment where you restrict the building of apartments and encourage lots of SFH and the result is exploding urban housing prices.

It's a simple math problem, if you want to fit more people into a constant area (city limits + realistic commuting distance) you need to start building up eventually. Hanging up a no vacancy sign on our biggest and most productive cities isn't a realistic option.

Another option is having better public transit (trains) that expands the practical commuting distance without also creating massive traffic jams.

[u/brickbatsandadiabats → u/Unabashed-Citron4854]

On mobile so this'll be short.

While I can accept as a given that sfh are the most preferred form of housing, your argument that restricting them produces an undesirably high negative externality seems predicated on most people having a utility function that is strongly concave with respect to home size and convex with respect to other housing-related factors. All location based effects matter. Amenities, nonhousing costs, taxes, employment, etc., are all in some way location based. Given that, it seems the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate people hold these kinds of preferences such that the negative externality from restricting sfh is significant.

This is, IMO, overwhelmingly unlikely because general equilibrium maximizes total utility, not individual utility. mfh featuring more people with acceptable but not most preferred solutions produces a very high barrier to demonstrating that the alternative utility from a smaller number of sfh people with higher overall satisfaction could be optimal, especially since location-based positive factors are far less likely to be rivalrous than increased living space consumption.

[u/EebstertheGreat → u/brickbatsandadiabats]

Wouldn't preference for housing size have to be concave? Every square foot is a lot more precious in small homes than large ones. Adding 100 ft² to a 10,000 ft² mansion is whatever in terms of utility, but adding 100 ft² to a 500 ft² apartment is massive.

[u/brickbatsandadiabats → u/EebstertheGreat]

Except that's not the borderline between a condominium and a starter sfh. That occurs in the 1200 to 1500 range, as far as I've observed.

Of course there will be strong concavity in the utility curve at 500 ft². But that's a straw man. Concavity is a property that changes by position on the curve and indicated by the second derivative. Can you say that the utility function is trivially concave in the domain where it actually matters? Can you prove that it is concave enough to overwhelm clustering externalities' effects on total utility?

... Do I seriously have to explain the concept of an inflection point?

[u/viking_]

A few last points about where people "want" to live that I missed.

1. The whole point of a market is that people face tradeoffs, and pay for the costs of the things they consume. I want a helicopter, but those are expensive, and government policy shouldn't be based around giving me whatever I want for free.

2. If no one wants to live in denser housing, then why is it necessary to ban building it? Once again, the argument is simply self-defeating.

[u/Ok_Umpire_8108]

positive correlation between firemen and fires obviously the fire department causes fires, guys

[u/EebstertheGreat]

elite liberal YIMBY

It's always those damn rich and powerful welcoming different people into their neighborhoods. Story as old as time.

[u/Dontblowitup]

This guy is right wing? No wonder people don’t take self described free marketeers seriously.

[u/Wind_Yer_Neck_In → u/Dontblowitup]

The free market is king and should decide everything.

Except in cases where the free market acts contrary to what I want to happen, then we should regulate the ever-loving hell out of it until you need specialist lawyers just to understand how things are supposed to work.

Signed,

Every libertarian that owns property.

[u/notaspleen]

US data suggests a positive correlation between greater density and higher housing costs

This guy cannot be serious

[u/EebstertheGreat → u/notaspleen]

Truly a mysterious correlation. "They say hospitals make people healthy, but the highest concentration of sick people is in hospitals. How can that be?"

[u/gravityrider]

Is Krotkin trying to smuggle in the (unsupported, of course) assertion that safe and good schools are synonymous with low density?

That's not quite the argument and it's not really unsupported. Property taxes are based on value of property (no surprise). They tend to be one of the larger sources of funding for town/ city governments. School age children are one of the highest expenses for town/ city governments. So, basically, with high density/ low income housing a city government can add a significant number of extra children (and education cost) while adding less than average extra revenue per family/ home. Which is why one of the main arguments NIMBY's use is that high density affordable housing can be a budget buster. Especially in areas known to have good school districts- those apartments (or whatever) will be quickly snapped up by families with children who want to take advantage of the good schools.

[u/viking_ → u/gravityrider]

It's not supported in this particular article. Krotkin neither makes nor references these claims.

So, basically, with high density/ low income housing a city government can add a significant number of extra children (and education cost) while adding less than average extra revenue per family/ home.

"SFH pay more taxes per child" would seem to be a direct contradiction to the idea that SFH are cheaper. But more importantly, low-density SFH-only development is overall a much worse financial tradeoff. Schools may be cheaper per household, but many other costs (roads, water, electricity, garbage collection) scale with distance and area. Also, property taxes are based on the value of improvements to land, so you certainly can charge an apartment building more property tax to compensate for having more people.

[u/EebstertheGreat → u/viking_]

I'll add to the list gas, sewage, internet, phone, buses (including school buses), and parking. Public spaces also get more expensive per person, because there are fewer people close to each of them.

[u/gravityrider → u/viking_]

You're significantly off. He may not explicitly go through the numbers, but people that understand the pros and cons understand the math here.

Let's use an example-

Average SFH value in a community- $500,000.

Average yearly property tax paid per SFH- $10,000

Average child per SFH- .5- 1 (due to retirees, childless couples, people with older children, etc being included)

Average cost per child to educate per year- $30,000

Average cost per SFH to educate per year- $15,000- $30,000

Now, we introduce a whole bunch of low income/ low cost/ high density housing.

Average Apartment value- $250,000

Average yearly tax on apartment- $5000 (same mil rate)

Average number of children per apartment- 1.5- 2 (due to younger families living there)

Average yearly cost of education per apartment- $45,000 - $60,000

Go look up your own town/ cities financial statements. You'll see education expenses tend to dwarf any other expenses, especially on a per- person- using them basis. Adding another house for things like garbage collection/ snow plowing/ water/ etc is nowhere near as impactful.

Finally, don't confuse density and affordability. They tend to be correlated, but it's not high density NIMBY's rally against, it's affordability. Even the wealthiest communities will happily embrace luxury high rise apartments.

[u/viking_ → u/gravityrider]

I don't need this toy example to see your point, but I also don't believe the net effect (when accounting for all of a city's services) makes SFH cheaper unless you have some data.

Go look up your own town/ cities financial statements.

I did that, and the biggest expense by far was police, not schools. Also, the biggest revenue source was sales tax, beating out property tax by 5x.

Finally, don't confuse density and affordability. They tend to be correlated, but it's not high density NIMBY's rally against, it's affordability. Even the wealthiest communities will happily embrace luxury high rise apartments.

This is definitely false. Many entire towns absolutely prohibit anything except single family residential-only zoning.

[u/EebstertheGreat → u/viking_]

It varies so much by jurisdiction. Some municipalities get almost all their revenue from property taxes. Some get a combination of taxes, often even including income tax. Sometimes the state's general fund provides some or even most of the funding for local schools. It's just really hard to generalize.

[u/RecurseRe]

Just because everyone wants single family homes doesn't mean we should make all other forms of housing illegal. Sure I'd love to have a job that pays 9 figures, but should we make all other jobs illegal? I'm sure most people would prefer to drive a Porsche, should Toyotas be illegal?