So let's say for a moment that you're right and such a policy would be beneficial to the landowners.
I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's a great concession — after all, it assumes that they don't have non-financial motivations (like living in a non-crowded area, or preferring the burbs), and that the economics of building high will work out (individual flats will be multiple times more affordable than the current houses, but the land will be more expensive than it is now). There won't be traffic issues because of more people commuting from the same area. The quality of life will stay the same. This frees you from having to argue against all homeowners in the country and labeling them as irrational.
It still doesn't matter if they're wrong or right. They have the power, and given the environment they're in, this is what they'll decide. The government can't do anything here to relax the laws.
> it assumes that they don't have non-financial motivations (like living in a non-crowded area, or preferring the burbs)
Why wouldn't the people who prefer this just take the developer's money, buy another house somewhere that hasn't been rezoned and pocket thousands of dollars?
> that the economics of building high will work out (individual flats will be multiple times more affordable than the current houses, but the land will be more expensive than it is now)
Individual flats will be somewhat more affordable than they are now because supply will increase. They don't have to be "multiple times more affordable" to cost some double-digit percentage less than they do now. Land will be worth more than it is now because you can build taller buildings on it so there will be new demand for land from the people increasing the supply of housing.
> There won't be traffic issues because of more people commuting from the same area.
Higher density areas allow mass transit to become viable, which reduces car traffic.
> They have the power, and given the environment they're in, this is what they'll decide. The government can't do anything here to relax the laws.
To begin with, if you convince them then they vote for something else.
Moreover, the status quo is self-destructive. As prices go up, fewer people can afford a home, and then if it's homeowners voting for the status quo, they become a minority and get overruled by the growing number of people who can't afford housing.
> Why wouldn't the people who prefer this just take the developer's money, buy another house somewhere that hasn't been rezoned and pocket thousands of dollars?
This one is obvious - they want to live close to where they've lived so far, and they want to stay in their house. Rezoning will inflate the house prices in the vicinity (because of the effect that you're describing of people moving close) so the residents won't feel confident that they can keep affording that area, and won't be pushed out into the countryside.
> Individual flats will be somewhat more affordable than they are now because supply will increase.
This works if the supply will overwhelmingly (in the scale of the entire metro), exceed demand. Here multiple things can happen. One is that demand increases with supply, prices of the apartments go up and match the prices of houses, and prices of houses will grow like you predict. The other one is that people don't want to live in a mixed zone neighborhood, the developer won't make money, so they'll build cheap slum housing instead of normal housing, and the value of the houses in the neighborhood decreases with the new construction. This really depends on the real world situation, and can't be accurately predicted with a supply and demand model.
> Higher density areas allow mass transit to become viable, which reduces car traffic.
People from the burbs don't want to take the bus, so they won't vote for that.
> To begin with, if you convince them then they vote for something else.
Good luck with that, but if you look back in 10 years, we'll be in the same spot.
> Moreover, the status quo is self-destructive. As prices go up, fewer people can afford a home, and then if it's homeowners voting for the status quo, they become a minority and get overruled by the growing number of people who can't afford housing.
This assumes the majority will vote according to their interests. They likely won't. The power to manufacture consent is still with the owning class.
> they want to live close to where they've lived so far, and they want to stay in their house.
Which they can still do. But they can also get a very similar house a few miles down the road and simultaneously get a large amount of money to put in their pocket.
> Rezoning will inflate the house prices in the vicinity (because of the effect that you're describing of people moving close) so the residents won't feel confident that they can keep affording that area, and won't be pushed out into the countryside.
If they're homeowners then the price they paid for housing was set when they bought their house, so they can't be pushed out. If they're renting then the value of the land going up isn't that relevant when the thing they care about is the value of a housing unit, which would go down as more units can be built on the same land, and thereby make it easier for them to stay.
> One is that demand increases with supply, prices of the apartments go up and match the prices of houses, and prices of houses will grow like you predict.
But that only makes further development even more profitable and creates even more supply.
> The other one is that people don't want to live in a mixed zone neighborhood, the developer won't make money, so they'll build cheap slum housing instead of normal housing
This is contrary to what has been observed in practice. People are willing to pay a premium to live in areas with mixed zoning and slums are created when existing neighborhoods decline for unrelated reasons and then landlords conclude that saving costs through lack of maintenance would be more profitable than trying to get blood from a stone.
The primary instance of slums being created by new housing construction are government housing projects which explicitly limit residents to people in poverty. That was a failed experiment and we shouldn't do it anymore.
> People from the burbs don't want to take the bus, so they won't vote for that.
It's not them who take the bus. The bus stops at the new condo tower so all the people who moved into it aren't clogging up your roads.
> The power to manufacture consent is still with the owning class.
Manufacturing consent requires bread and circuses. You make people enough homeless and miserable and you're going to get riots.
I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's a great concession — after all, it assumes that they don't have non-financial motivations (like living in a non-crowded area, or preferring the burbs), and that the economics of building high will work out (individual flats will be multiple times more affordable than the current houses, but the land will be more expensive than it is now). There won't be traffic issues because of more people commuting from the same area. The quality of life will stay the same. This frees you from having to argue against all homeowners in the country and labeling them as irrational.
It still doesn't matter if they're wrong or right. They have the power, and given the environment they're in, this is what they'll decide. The government can't do anything here to relax the laws.