[simianwords]

Mostly the priorities are not competing. You can and should build more homes but the end goal is to improve utility of land which can further drive prices up thus helping both cases.

You can first build more homes - prices go down and more people come into the city and prices start going back up because of increased economic activity.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> You can and should build more homes

Yes. The entry point to ownership lies within a state of affordability.

> but the end goal is to improve utility of land

For who? If it's anyone other than typical wage earners, this goal competes with home ownership by pressuring ownership costs upward and away from affordability.

For context, home purchases are mostly (if not fully) impossible for typical wage earners.

[simianwords]

For the city or country. Home ownership is not impossible, I know you meant it as hyperbole.

We shouldn’t mind if home ownership becomes costly if more economic activity results out of it. More economic activity means more money in the hands of wage earners (just that proportionally more money is spent on housing which is okay).

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Home ownership is not impossible, I know you meant it as hyperbole.

I did not. 25% of US households make under $40/yr.

(based on 2022 data that 25% of all US households make ~$35k/yr or less. +10% for minorities.)