Their scope of possibility precludes anything but 'market solutions' due to the :brainworms: and the general discourse about housing in the USA being exactly like that.

The Faircloth Limit is the anchor that prevents most discourse from going anywhere but towards 'market solutions':

In 1998, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) was passed and signed by President Bill Clinton. Following the frame of welfare reform, QHWRA developed new programs to transition families out of public housing, developed a home ownership model for Section 8, and expanded the HOPE VI program to replace traditional public housing units. The act also effectively capped the number of public housing units by creating the Faircloth Limit as an amendment to the Housing Act of 1937, which limited funding for the construction or operation of all units to the total number of units as of October 1, 1999 and repealed a rule that required one for one replacement of demolished housing units.

On the other hand, having 'progressive' NIMBYs oppose any zoning denser than Single Family with the cry of "It's just supply side Reaganomics!" kinda poisons the discourse as well. There's a huge housing crisis in most cities. Basically both camps have terrible :brainworms: that prevent even the possibility of thinking about solutions that are not directed by incumbent powers to their benefit. It's basically the same red vs blue shit in a more niche domain of local politics. You end up with weird shit like progressive NIMBYs and conservative YIMBYs.