> I like to be productive and crate value.

You can create value in the 99% of the world that isn't attached to your house.

Also a more conservative set of rules, like the limits I was talking about, would still let you own a house and upgrade it a lot in a way that you fully own.

> There are so many better ways to solve this problem than putting a cap on value creation.

Does "value creation" here specifically mean adding more living space?

Only a very tiny fraction of homeowner construction projects would be an issue. And if you want to do something like build a third house on your property, a rule like that would say "go ahead, but then you have to sell it when you're done". You can create tons of value and profit from it, you just can't own three houses.

Lets assume this rule is only about living spaces, and not other assets and infrastructure.

I like building and improving houses. I have one in the bay area I work to improve.

I have built a mountain home in the Sierra Nevada, and am working on a desert home in Nevada. These take nothing away from anyone. They were empty land surrounded by more empty parcels before I did something with them.

There is no shortage of land and nothing is stopping someone else from doing the same. When I die, they will probably be sold off, and there will be more options. until then, nobody is worse off. I have thought about renting them out, which is still better than if they never existed.

Who am I hurting, and why should I be forced to sell?

If there was a law I couldnt own three houses, I simply wouldnt build them.

There could be an exception for houses in the middle of nowhere.

But also in economic terms, if that house is in a zero-demand area and won't be on the market for decades, then it would be better if you don't build it, and instead either spend that money elsewhere or invest it.

Who cares about economic terms? It is my money, and I will light it on fire if I want to.

Furthermore, sweat equity is real. You can put sweat, blood, and 100k of materials into something and have an 300k asset. It doesnt matter if a desert lot was dirt cheap.

I find it funny when people forget you can create value yourself instead of passively investing in someone else who creates it.

> Who cares about economic terms? It is my money, and I will light it on fire if I want to.

You're the one that brought up value creation, not me.

If it's a "who cares" when it goes against how you want to spend, then it's also a "who cares" when it aligns with how you want to spend.

> Furthermore, sweat equity is real. You can put sweat, blood, and 100k of materials into something and have an 300k asset. It doesnt matter if a desert lot was dirt cheap.

> I find it funny when people forget you can create value yourself instead of passively investing in someone else who creates it.

A house nobody else wants has a value of zero dollars, and you didn't create value.

If that house is worth 300k, then I misunderstood your earlier description.

But this kind of situation is not what normally happens. Whether it's allowed or not doesn't really matter. The important case is what happens when people build/buy in areas with more than negligible demand.

Strange, for me owning a property is slavery, being pinned to a single location. I'm retired now, looking back, I was free, happy and productive in the years that I was renting and unhappy while owning.