Something that really irked me is that Robert kept railing against the zoning thing like people think it's a dive bullet and it's a big Libertarian push to deregulate and forget. True, a lot of the zoning issue come from one major popular source, Strong Towns which is tackles the issue from a fiscally conservative angle. But the issue is regressive zoning regulations that hurt poor people. Robert kind of hand waived away the lack of multi family housing issue in cities and when looking at the numbers he talked about the ratio of house verse family size. He completely ignored the fact that there is very little dense housing being built in inner cities because of these regulations which is gentrifying the poor into rural exurbs now and forcing them into owning personal vehicles when they could previously use public transportation because that's the only place new housing supply is being added. Regressive Euclidean zoning that was literally designed to make suburbs expensive to keep the poor out and now those types of suburbs are the only thing that's legal to build in most areas, this has contributed to driving up the cost of housing because developers only build single family homes and the average home sizes are much bigger than they were sixty years ago. It's simple mathematics that if you get rid of these zoning codes you can fit more houses per square kilometer which drivers down the cost of each dwelling. It's not a silver bullet, and it won't do anything to solve the housing crisis right now, but it will ease the issue over time.

Robert also placed way too much emphasis on NIMBYS which felt like a straw man too, because while housing advocate do complain about NIMBYS a lot, I've never seen anyone make the claim that they are the predominant cause of rising home costs.