Plenty of basic human needs are financialized - crops and water and electricity - and they don't have any problems.

Why is financializing land and real estate a cause for the problem?

I argue it's not financializing, but the lack of allowance for production of more, when the price signals a demand for more.

When crop prices are high, farmers grow more, or make use of more land to grow. Ditto with electricity or water. Why isn't more land opened up for development, when price of real estate is high?

How does your theory explain the difference in housing prices between San Francisco and Lubbock?

The "theory" relates to increase over time for a single location, not differences between 2 locations at a single point in time. But to stick to your example, investors are more likely to flock to a location with greater returns. At the same time, Lubbock hasn't exactly remained stagnant.

https://learn.roofstock.com/blog/lubbock-real-estate-market

Why are you so sure the outsized returns don't have anything to do with zoning?