If you're just happily living in a house you own, it's nice that the theoretical price is going up, but it's of limited actual benefit to you. It only has a real impact when you sell - and only has a benefit if the house you want to buy has appreciated less than the one you're selling to pay for it.
Houses falling in value is bad - people are trapped where they are by negative equity, which creates inefficiencies (can't move to a better paying job, as can't sell the house you're in).
The only thing I think is universally bad about house prices rising (along with low interest rates) is that it allows people to re-mortgage their homes (or choose not to pay down capital), to buy another home to rent as an investment (either directly, or through an investment). This creates a feedback loop, creating a class of owners and trapped renters.
I'd have thought the solution here would be a healthy dose of taxation on rental income.
At least in the US, home equity is the largest single asset class for most people.[1] I agree with most is what you said, but it seems fairly predictable that people would try to protect the biggest egg inn their nest. Whether or not itβs good policy to combine supporting that is another matter.
[1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/11/gaps-in-wealt...
In fact, that sounds like misplaced blame when in the exact same post you mention these things:
1. The median voter is a homeowner
2. The homeowner wants the price of their house to increase
3. Therefore it is in their interest to keep housing unaffordable
4. Therefore they continue voting for the people who facilitate it, and don't vote for the people who want to change it.
5. All because their house is not a home, but an investment
In your mind, a person who is fed up of being priced out of a place to live is part of the problem? It doesn't stack up.