Housing crackdowns punish the visible owner, not the binding constraint.
Institutional buyers are roughly 1% of single-family transactions and nearly absent from the least-affordable coastal metros, yet they absorb the political blame while the zoning and permitting barriers that actually constrain supply escape untouched.
The same conclusion keeps arriving from across the workspace's research — 1 topics independently instantiate this theme. Filter the evidence by where it came from:
The free-market camp's core argument is the theme stated by its advocates — the visible investor absorbs the blame while zoning, permitting, and macro costs that actually constrain supply escape untouched.
The crackdown's target is least present exactly where affordability is most severe, so ownership identity cannot be the price-setting constraint the ban presumes.