> Even if you need your home to live in, you can still borrow against your property value, essentially "eating the bricks".

This is not a source of money, it's only a source of collateral. Anything you borrow not only has to be paid back, you have to pay interest. And interest rates are higher than they used to be and the standard deduction is now large enough that most people don't get to deduct the interest anymore.

Moreover, it only means anything if the difference in value would have made a difference. If you want to borrow $20,000 then a house with $100,000 in equity is quite sufficient and another $100,000 in equity isn't doing much for you.

> If you desperately need money, you can move into something smaller, or more distant from the city, and cash out.

Houses are much worse for this than e.g. stocks, because they're hard (and extremely inconvenient when you live in it) to sell in a hurry unless you want to a lose a lot of value. A lot of people also can't do this anymore because they got a fixed-rate mortgage before rates went up and now they can't move or they'll have to refinance at the higher rate which would eat most if not more than all of the difference in value.

> If you do neither of these things, your children will inherit the value of your house.

But then they need a place to live and then either can't sell it because they're living in it or get the money from selling it but pay that much again to acquire a different place to live.

It's a housing version of the national debt philosophy, where debt doesn't matter as long as you're outpacing it with growth. If last decade you had $25k HELOC on a 400k house and today you have $50k HELOC on a 800k house, your finances have clearly improved