you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Lobbying and self interest.

These reforms may result in housing prices decreasing or holding steady. Which is a plus for anyone entering or laterally moving to occupy. It's a negative for people using housing as an investment.

It's not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would "hurt" them personally.

Same with WFH endangering commercial real estate. Lobbies and personal interest. Plenty of business owners in politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It’s not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would “hurt” them personally.

    More to the point, it will cost them any support among suburban homeowners, which is how we got here in the first place. That's a massive bloc of voters and very few homeowners don't see their homes as an investment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yes, the "fuck you, I got mine" is the core American voter demographic, unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    There’s also the fact that plummeting property values is really hard to sell to the majority of the voting base. Many homeowners won’t vote for someone who will tank their often largest asset. A lot of the middle class has a lot of their money in mortgages on their primary home.

  • source
  • parent