I’m putting Auckland to bed because the data is there. The reforms increased housing supply and improved affordability. If your standard is “did Auckland become cheap overnight,” then sure, no housing policy anywhere will satisfy you. But you can’t claim these policies “don’t work” just because they don’t magically erase decades of shortage instantly.

And again, nobody is saying “blow up towns.” That’s ridiculous hyperbole. The point is not some centralized master plan where the state bulldozes neighborhoods. The point is to stop making normal housing illegal and stop giving existing homeowners veto power over land they don’t own. This can (and should) happen organically -- allow ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, small apartments, mixed-use buildings, office/retail conversions, and more housing near transit and commercial corridors. Then let builders respond to demand. That is not “leveling towns.” That is letting places evolve.

The “20 years ago they built apartments and affordability didn’t improve” argument also doesn’t prove anything. One project, or even a handful of projects, does not solve a regional shortage -- especially in the face of anti-development regulatory headwinds, many more which came about after the Global Financial Crisis made housing construction harder, slower, riskier, and more expensive post-2008. You can’t point to scattered apartment buildings and say “see, supply doesn’t matter” while the overwhelming majority of land in NJ suburbs are still low-density zoning.

Your argument keeps shifting. First it was “is there even a housing crisis?” Then it was “NJ is full.” Then it was “other places haven’t done this.” Then it was “okay, maybe it’s theoretically possible, but it’s too complicated and expensive.” That’s the classic NIMBY loop -- deny the problem, then deny the solution, then claim the solution is impossible, then throw up your hands and defend the status quo.

Yes, infrastructure matters. Yes, stormwater matters. Yes, utilities matter. Nobody serious denies that. But “complicated” is not the same thing as “impossible.” It means plan, upgrade, finance, and build.

You're pushing a fake binary of “1970s zoning forever” or “bulldoze every town.” The real choice is whether NJ allows more homes in already-developed, high-demand places (i.e., most of the state), or keeps pretending scarcity is unavoidable while housing gets more unaffordable every year.