I don’t know. Actually, I only wrote that because I needed a headline.

The Globe ran an editorial today entitled “Where’s the housing” which asked the question, Where’s the housing?

It costs so much to build in the city of Boston, due to lack of land and the high cost of construction (and because developers want to make a lot of money), so little is built here. Meanwhile, in the suburbs, residents don’t want new neighbors, because they’ll have kids, and those kids will go to public schools, and therefore everyone’s taxes will go up, plus residents don’t want more traffic and congestion (and because they want big yards and don’t want condo developments because then poorer, darker people will be able to afford to move in), so little is built there, either.

Good editorial. I have two things to say about it, though.

The Globe repeats the oft-quoted statistic that the city of Boston “has issued permits for 17,000 units over the past seven years”, most recently permits for the 523 units of housing at Olmsted Green.

You always hear the Mayor bragging about the number of housing units that have been built over the years of his administration.

I am, how you say, extremely skeptical.

First, as even a child knows, what is permitted and what is built is two different things.

Second, the city includes just about anything and everything in their total - from multi-million dollar condos in the Ritz Carlton Towers (hi, Manny!) … to the renovation of apartments in your local housiing project.

Not that they don’t count.

But, don’t fool yourselves.

The actual number of market rate (and below market rate) condos built over the past half-decade is much less than they say.

Except I have no hard data to back up any of my assertions.

You want data, read a newspaper.

The second thing I want to say is, if I have to hear this story about this poor dental surgery resident one more time, I’ll burst (you’ll have to read the Globe editorial to see what I’m talking about).