I took their statement differently; rather, that they aren't concerned for the fallout of the Haves at the sacrifice for the HaveNots.

I am uninformed in this game, so this is not a statement by me: However i've been told that one issue is squatters, land being used purely as investment and with low costs you can easily afford to buy land and squat it till a time when you later sell it in the market.

As someone looking to buy land to build a home on, i've noticed quite a lot of property seemingly being used purely for investment. Flipped through the years for profit with no real added value, in an area of the country (PNW) that is very, very expensive due to limited supply. It is very cheap to keep land, tens of dollars a year for 10 acres (the lot size i'm familiar with) iirc.

Inhibiting this behavior seems beneficial.

Though i imagine more interesting (than simply "high") taxes could help more. Ie something like a higher tax on unimproved and uninhabited land. Encourage usage, not squatting.

But.. i don't know anything here. I just have experience looking to buy land, and watching what goes up for sale.

> Encourage usage, not squatting.

Yes agreed, though I do think people conflate things and vilify wrong targets, which sounds a lot like the OP.

E.g. in California it's en vogue to rail against "Prop 13" without considering why it was passed, or how it helps people on fixed incomes remain in their homes. , or more importantly how the financialization of homes has made things bad globally.

Just because it was passed for a good reason does not make it a good policy. Prop 13, whatever the good intentions, is a disaster and has created a modern landed gentry in California.

And the same politicians that those homeowners vote for. And lobby. Especially retirees who have time to do things like endlessly harangue their local councils to implement NIMBYist policies to prevent increasing housing supply in order to drive their housing prices higher. Of course, couched in language like "preserving the historical character of the neighborhood" and "keeping the riff raff out".

I think you are missing something. It's not about blame, that doesn't matter. People are lashing out. It's about anger at the system. It's becoming increasingly obvious that recently a large part of our personal prosperity is based on incumbency. Our government is routinely breaking social contracts which maintain order. That makes people angry at the system, government and their fellow citizens.

> That makes people angry at the system, government and their fellow citizens.

The "system" and governments frequently prefer angry people direct their rage at other citizens instead of them! QED

One can very convincingly make the argument that state and national governments are undemocratic and difficult for individuals or local groups to influence. But on the scale of a county, small town, or city government, that's less the case. Individual voters who have repeatedly NIMBY voted against densification have absolutely caused their own home values to inflate.