> That a growing asset class that increases prices, destroys communities because of lack of ties, and shifts wealth from builders to owners that doesn't outperform public markets in aggregate is a good thing?

You added a bunch of stuff in front which isn’t substantiated as being an effect of private equity or unique to it.

Most complaints about PE tend to boil down to complaints about, in the extreme, private ownership, and in the specific, leverage or non-local control. Those are legitimate complaints that attach to PE. But not necessarily. And in some cases, not in most cases.

> it's the builders who have built over multiple decades who profit (great!) one time

Sure. They get the multiple. They can now build more.

Yes, the stuff I added is anecdotal, but pretty well established from my discussions and observations of high level operators and related service providers (Bain, McKinsey, etc.) LMK if you've ever seen a slide deck in their post-acquisition plans that says "Impact on Community."

The PE complaints are mostly unsophisticated from 'the community' but actually have a very reasonable underpinning - as discussed above.

Finally for builders - this is great. Probably the single best application - but again, cost benefit I'm pretty sure it's not only economic drag, but social drag as well.

Again - the asset class has expanded massively. It's due a reckoning - curious how many firms are actually solvent were they required to sell their holdings in market.