Homeowners subsequently hire contractors for maintenance and upkeep which spreads that choice around vs firm ownership which will negotiate a single contract and extract price concessions from their position.

As it is impractical to have land ownership be a public good (centrally owned (or not owned depending on your take on the whole land ownership issue) distributing ownership appears to have the best effect on overall use.

It's the lack of banking competition, not mortgage.

Offer a tax deduction on mortgage interest and people can afford a higher price so competition drives prices up and everyone ends up in the same place. Same with lower interest rates, etc.

One could argue there is a period where housing is easier to purchase once a new subsidy is created, but shortly after that, the market reaches equilibrium and we're back in the same place.

Just imagine if there were no housing subsidies. Housing prices would be mich lower. And yes, I know that's a gross oversimplification, but I think the effect is still there.

Exactly: it's a tax subsidy to sales agents (and others whose income depends on the transaction price). Homeowners don't get anything out of it except that their house has a larger $ on their list of assets. It doesn't help them buy a better house (since everyone in the same income bracket can afford the same house).

It's pitched as a middle class benefit though, so simplifying the system would be greeted with howls of dismay.

It does screw those of us who pay cash for our houses BTW.

Furthermore, land is one of the few intrinsic assets of a sovereign state. With their intervention, they can enable diversified, private ownership of land, rather than a widely-recognized concentration of the state's land in a few hands.