"subsidies [...] doesn't do a good job" seem pretty hand-waving to me. I can't even be sure what you mean, do you mean "rent control doesn't lower prices for everyone"? Which is true but also probably the biggest straw man in housing discussions.
I mean the net effect of any housing subsidy in isolation or all housing subsidies in aggregate is likely negative. By subsidies I mean any government policy which distorts the market from either the supply side or the demand side. In every case it's a subsidy -- the only differences are to whom and from whom. I am not erecting a straw-man, because I didn't representing the opposing view as "rent control is meant to lower prices for everyone." I understand that people in favor of rent control may not care that it inflates housing prices for others. My point is that the net effect is negative, based on the concept of the broken windows fallacy, which is a well-reasoned concept. I also believe that subsidies don't do a great job in housing specifically because they tend to limit supply -- and so we see a benefit occurring to those who get the subsidy, but we don't see how many more people could have had housing, but do not, in the counterfactual case.
Anyway, I think I'm making a substantive point, so I don't get the accusation of "hand-waving." Accusing someone of ignoring complexity is not an argument against the points they did make.
