I don't think I've moved goalposts -- maybe just failed to articulate my concern precisely. (And only skimmed the article you linked.)
If the government purchases real estate with its own money and later sells it--fine by me. They have business to take care of and need places to do it.
What bothers me specifically would be a growing federal or state government stake in assets owned by others by virtue of a tax law that grants them such ownership.
I imagine whole swaths of businesses, apartments, and other buildings in cities across the US that are >50% owned by the government 40 years from now.
It would push us a lot closer to a world where people don't own anything anymore besides their own houses (maybe not even that) and the government owns everything.
> It would push us a lot closer to a world where people don't own anything anymore besides their own houses (maybe not even that) and the government owns everything.
I'm really struggling to understand this point of view, given the article that you couldn't be bothered to read says the US government owns 15% of all real estate already.
In my country, the reason that a lot of people own their houses is because the government sold its housing stock to residents in the 1980s and 1990s. That created a majority of homeowners, for the first time.
The fact that the government didn't replace this housing stock has been the cause of a massive generational rift, with a reduction in owner-occupancy from that peak, down to the point that a plurality of people (the vast majority of people under 45 - almost all young families) are now private renters in insecure housing situations.
While that same housing stock - originally built by the people, for the people - is increasingly dominated by exploitative for-profit landlords.