Depends on how it's done.

No it's not, it's a great policy, it just needs to be supplemented by incentives to build or direct government building programs.

Nawwe, fuck off with that. There's no reason to believe that graph represents anything except what was in the mind of the person who made it.

This is what gets me. Like it's been proven to be a bad policy. So when people say it's bad do people equate that with "leftist ideas are bad"? Like if leftists want support you should lead with ideas that aren't bad according to actual data. There are plenty of ways to increase housing and do a ton of other stuff that has data backing it as being an effective use of funds.

Same with affordable housing. We had a ballot measure to basically make a big pot of money and "support affordable housing." How? It certainly makes zero sense to build new housing out of that pot (ie. it's expensive as fuck.) Do you just subsidize? What are the criteria? And what are you doing to affect the root issue that is lack of actual supply of housing? Are you cutting red tape? Are you removing minimum parking requirements? Are you developing transit and relaxing building codes (ie. higher is good) at certain lengths from transit stops?

I've long seen way too many leftist ideas that are more good feeling than good thought. Which is admirable to some extent but it also shows why they fail. Especially when you take into account that it would help the extremely marginalized but you're also now asking the already poor "middle class" to foot yet more bills for something that they won't directly see any benefit from.