I live in Seattle, and this is a scapegoat. it's another way to point a finger at anything but massive restrictions on supply. The easiest solution to collusion to keep prices high is to let lots of other people build and compete down price. In Washington, most new construction happens on a very small number of parcels, because that's the only place we allow it.
Nobody concerned about rent price fixing thinks that we don't also need to build more housing here. This is just another part of the problem. Are you defending the practice?
I think it simply doesn't matter. The only reason it could have any impact at all is in an incredibly constrained market. Unconstrain the market and they just won't be able to; it wouldn't work.
Also - I don't think it actually affects prices. It's just that they've gotten good at seeking price equilibrium.
Seattle upzoned huge chunks of the city, allowed ADUs (now two adus are permitted on all lots), and removed single family zoning. All within the past five years.
Last year, Seattle built 20% more houses than the highest of any of the previous ten years. (~13k units) And this year we're 11% above last year, so far.
What about that is not "actually encouraging more building"? I'd say your data might need revising.
It's honestly not that much. I know it looks good when comparing to recent years, but it doesn't look as good when you look at regional numbers (the city limits don't matter much in a housing market) - and the number of ADUs you can build in the entire city in a year is lower than some single new apartment buildings. We aren't keeping up with demand, much less drawing down the likely hundreds of thousands (seriously) of units we need to allow.
