> Get involved with local politics. Join community planning boards, go to city council meetings, and voice support for relaxing rules around zoning.

I think the takeaway from the last few election cycles is that this really isn't effective anymore now that the channels of information and communication are controlled by a small handful of corporations who's objective is to simply make more money.

But even besides that, I feel that defeats the spirit of the American Dream. What good is making just my community better when the kids one town over are falling behind because they don't have the property tax base to fund better programs and wealthy parents that can pay for better early childcare, private tutoring, and more resources? I already live in a fairly well-off enclave; my concern is for the rest of my fellow Americans who are not so fortunate -- the same concern as Atwood; we've "made it", but we want a society that leaves behind stepping stones for others to make their way up.

So I am compliant when it comes to paying taxes and do not shun paying my fair share because in my view, taxes and government -- you know, of the people, by the people, for the people -- are supposed to be used to make all of America better and not just better for some Americans. But we've seen decades of policy bifurcating on this point. You may point out that spending on social programs have increased. Yes, but so has rent-taking on that spend and siphoning and accumulation of those funds in a few coffers.

> information and communication are controlled by a small handful of corporations who's objective is to simply make more money.

Local elections are where that small handful of corporations have zero impact. Even the real estate investment trusts and private equity don't bother with local elections, because its hopeless. Local elections are entirely determined by small networks of highly connected individuals, which is almost always homeowners looking to protect their biggest asset, their home value.

And that's why local politics has resulted in a housing shortage, because the big bad villain isn't a man in a tophat with a gold watch in a corporate office, it's the next door neighbor that really hates the idea of seeing an apartment building when they drive to work each morning, and especially hates the idea of mere renters living nearby and thinks that they'll bring crime and reduce his property value.

I've been doing that for 8 years, and organized into local groups with others (the lone voice has little impact, but a contingent of people that politicians think will vote a certain way and tell their friends to vote a certain way have a much bigger impact). However, it's not been very successful, because there's an even larger contingent of people with more wealth, more time, and more experience. The tide is turning, but it's slow.

Minnesota is an example where it worked really well, and I wish that the people in my California town were as big-hearted and progressive as those in Minneapolis. Maybe we'll get there here some day.

In the meantime, state-level efforts are overriding the local NIMBYs far more effectively than the local efforts. It turns out that nearly every single local politician wants to override the NIMBYs, but can't due to the way that local elections work (small number of highly motivated folks usually determine the outcome). However, when elected to the state level, there's a broader electoral base and the politicians can finally start to force housing into cities.

I still recommend getting involved locally, whether or not it has a big effect. It is rewarding in its own way, and has lots of benefits in areas other than housing too.