I guess the confounding factor is that the population isn't fixed. Greater construction could result in population growth which cancels out the gains from greater supply. You'd have to build faster than population growth to lower prices. And generally developers aren't looking to do that.

If you try to take any local action that might lower housing prices or even keep them steady, you will likely be stymied by a large contingent of people that deny that new housing could ever raise rents.

The idea that supply and demand don't apply to housing is quite popular:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27397156

And the very few academic articles that try to refute housing supply lowering prices get a lot of press:

https://hellgatenyc.com/take-that-ezra-klein/

Even when it's not peer-reviewed and contradicts a ton of more serious research attempts, a bid of research which rarely gets popular press coverage.

It's like climate denialism, there's huge demand for denialist positions and very little research to back it up, so the press does not reflect the research.

People are quick to point out that induced demand exists - especially people that aren't fond of change.

Very broadly speaking, people mis-estimate effect sizes in economics by orders of magnitude. Induced demand is just their foothold to claim an effect exists, before they go about claiming the effect size they want to see.

> When there’s more of a thing, it costs less.

Yeah, and when we add lanes to roads, the average speeds increase and commutes get shorter. Right?

Also, if the government gives me $1 billion, then I'll be rich. But what happens if the government gives everyone $1 billion? Everyone will be rich, right?