I have a different take. I feel housing is important enough that the government (i.e., the voters) shouldn't be able to interfere in the market for it, e.g., shouldn't be able to restrict who can buy and who can sell a house or apartment building.

If it's so important, then my take is that the government should step in and make sure it happens and in some orderly way.

Cost cutting in my town for profits that go away just drains the local's pockets. If you want free market rules to apply, then profits going out of the town/city should be taxed harder to promote local businesses and community.

If there are people that cannot afford housing, I would prefer for the government to give those people money rather than interfering with the resource-allocation system on which everyone relies. Prohibiting certain kinds of investors from investing in housing would be an example of interfering.

> Prohibiting certain kinds of investors from investing in housing would be an example of interfering.

Note that I did not propose forbidding investment, just having rules to help make sure final ownership ends in people (who ideally live there and don't own other 10+ homes).

I'm just making sure that investments don't fuel a system where regular people can't own, but only rent forever, paying past the investment and a healthy interest for their lending, planning and doing service.

Why do road and other infrastructure investments can get these limited profit kind of terms for governments, but housing can't get similar ones for the people?