I do appreciate your detailed response.

I don't really agree with it. Very little had been built over the past 30 years especially when you compare it to the period from 1800 to about 1950. In the 90s and early 2000 most of the development was rehabbing what was burnt out or run down from the decay of the 70s and 80s.

It sounds like you want to basically stop all development. If you stop development prices will go no where but up. It's an issue the country has been grappling with amd especially CA and the northeast for 40 years. Do we move past what has been built and build up or keep the neighborhoods as they are. By and large they have been left alone but prices have zoomed higher.