Lots of people have kids and want them to be able to a) not be a victim of crime, and b) be able to afford a house. Anyone who has loads of money to afford high house prices and private security can afford luxury beliefs, as espoused in Oscar acceptance speeches, but everyone else with housing and kids is either voting for less crime and better affordability, or is not yet voting for those things.

But people who only own 1 house at most are still disadvantaged by this - sure, the value of their apt goes up, but if they want to switch to a larger house, the difference they're paying also increases, so do the property and wealth taxes, if applicable.

There are many stories of solidly low-to-middle class families who lived in an area where property prices soared, and had to choose between bankruptcy or moving out, because they could no longer.

The only people who benefit from this are the investors and landlords. So allowing housing prices to surge is literally taxing the poor for the benefit of the rich.

Buildings also deteroriate - ask a civil engineer. Building something that lasts 50-100 years is much cheaper than something that can be maintained economically indefinitely. If you own a house with copper or PVC plumbing, that they go bad after 40-50 years, and fixing burst pipes quickly gets expensive.

Why do countries allow housing prices to rise then? Simple, it allows banks to have a massive portfolio of loans, where they get a steady source of income for literally decades, while also getting a massive portfolio of real estate they can use as basis for leverage to grant loans (which they profit off of).

Governments can then tax the banks and get some of that money without the dreaded specter of increasing income taxes.

The only problem is that the everyman gets stuck with a 10,25, and now 50 year old loan (with a similar increase in price) for the very same median house.

"typically own the houses and they obviously don’t want the prices to go down."

I've never understood this: If I replace a single home with 20 apartment homes, I've raised the value of the whole property at purchase time no? You're already dealing with home valuations that have faaar outstripped wages, the only way you go any higher is to build more homes on the same property.

Counterintuitively, the "I don't want to live next to apartments" line of thinking actually seems more potent in the regular NIMBY headspace? Like people will forego higher valuations to keep their suburb a suburb.

“Show me the incentive and i’ll show you the outcome”

I’ve learned a long time ago that we’re not always aware of how incentives drive our own behavior, it just happens naturally. This is exactly what’s happening with housing.