The $/sqft of housing tends to go up as density increases... for the same reason as the article is suggesting: incomes are higher, so people can eat higher prices.

If the market couldn't bear it, you'd have vacancy. But you do not.

Which, according to this analysis, does not actually significantly affect prices relative to other factors.

I understand your theory and I intuitively don't find it "wrong" per se, but you're staring at an analysis that shows you otherwise. Your critique of it not factoring in things like policy is explicitly wrong: all of those factors are fully accounted for in the ultimate supply elasticity.

So if policy is accounted for (it is), and your theory doesn't hold, it's time to either come up with a different critique of the study or acknowledge it as clear evidence against your theory.

This is so significant an effect that there is a highly lucrative business in simply buying low-density zoned land and going through the entitlements to turn it into a high-density zone. This does not just generate a free lunch for a developer to build more units on the same plot of land at the same price, it makes the land instantly more expensive.

They do! And then like all other markets, equilibrium is found, and that equilibrium point is what moves up as incomes move up.

I am currently selling a house. How do I set my price? I ask myself: "What salary would someone moving to this area likely be making?" And I set my price accordingly.

Literally none of the zoning laws are necessary. This method is how price is set in 100% of real estate transactions in 100% of localities, regardless of any other regulations.

FWIW I'm also an LVT zealot. Have you read Progress & Poverty yet?

It quite literally is directly the cause. The price of real estate in an area is overwhelmingly defined by the productivity of the local area.

Productivity goes up → income goes up → real estate prices go up.

It's that those factors don't appear to matter.

2. No, it specifically makes sprawl very expensive relative to density, and economic decisions are largely made on a comparative basis. LVT makes it free to increase the density/productivity of your existing lot, while taking ownership of another lot (more area) introduces a huge new tax burden that you have to put to very productive use very quickly.

It's way, way cheaper to increase density than sprawl under LVT.

Meanwhile, simple income level does predict the movement of prices.

They impounded funding. That’s exactly what they’re doing and it’s exactly what’s illegal.

Glad you don’t dispute Congress’s Constitutional role though!

If I believe USAID is full of waste, fraud, and abuse, I’m free to express that at the ballot box where I vote for a congressperson who wishes to vote on the next budget accordingly.

The executive has many dimensions of freedom with regard to federal agencies. “Existence of” and “funding of” are not among those dimensions of freedom.