Housing shortfall, costs and affordability

[nms]

This Australian article says that using the term "NIMBY" as an insult is misguided and that "The real reason for the housing affordability crisis is the “NIMPS” — “Not into my profits”. These are the property developers and multiple property-owning landlords and politicians who won't allow a cent to be spent on public housing and quality public infrastructure, lest it eat into their profits and generous tax breaks."

I don't think that's as much the case here. I don't see a pushback on Kitchener Housing or similar organizations, but then their presence (and housing portfolio) is also only a fraction of what it might be in a similar-sized city in Europe or the UK. (The one part that might apply is the general fear by local politicians of property tax increases in general.)

I don't know whether the (voting) public here would have an appetite for building public housing on a significant scale. So far, I don't see anyone even proposing that.

We definitely see the "Not Into My Profits" here. If developers were more interested in the public good than their profits our cities would be better places (which I realize would be counter the capitalist approach of "make as much money as you can, and then move on"). For instance:
1. An automatic acceptance that every development over a certain size must include an affordable housing component, possibly managed either as a co-op within the larger building, or by a government agency.
2. An acceptance that mew housing stock needs to include a variety of units to allows a variety of groupings (eg singles, new families, large families, multiple generation families) and ownership options (eg freehold, rental, condo, co-op)
3. An acceptance that eating into the public realm is not good (eg no setbacks or lack ground floor green space on the property)
4. An acceptance that development fees are necessary to support civic infrastructure for new residents (eg libraries, parks, streetscapes)