There's a big difference between land prices and the building prices. When costs rise 5% per year for a house that's untouched, that's almost entirely the land price going up.

You can make housing cheaper by putting more houses on the same amount of land. In high cost areas, the price of land dominates the cost of housing.

Political pressure to change the investment nature of housing can come from various directions, for example establishing a land value tax, which eliminates the financial incentive to speculate on rising land prices by keeping people out of your area, redistributes all those unearned land rents to the population equally, as is only fair, and also results in a lot of people selling land to be redeveloped taht are otherwise hoarding it when the rest of society would be using it a lot better. Of course, in societies with high levels of land ownership, the voting public usually tries to vote away such extremely fair taxes.

Politically, we must stop prioritizing the views of homeowners at the local level. They already got their reward, massive unearned capital gains on their residence, there's no need to give them priority on land use over the general needs of society.

> Politically, we must stop prioritizing the views of homeowners at the local level. They already got their reward, massive unearned capital gains on their residence, there's no need to give them priority on land use over the general needs of society.

They are the majority of people in most areas, so it does make sense that they would be given priority in some ways.

The rest of your post is unsubstantiated vitriol, which isn't exactly convincing.