I'd argue it's more "keep housing affordable without reducing the value of my home".
I recall seeing some article in which people were arguing that a council relaxing zoning laws to make more/cheaper housing possible was a "government taking" as it would reduce the value of their homes. Unfortunately I don't recall where/when so I can't guarantee it's not my mind merging unrelated stories.
It's quite selfish because there is a savings glut. Lots of reasons why people cut consumption but those savings have to go somewhere and this leads to low interest rates which then fuel the housing market. If the housing market crashes but the savings glut doesn't disappear then the housing market will recover within a year. If you did the obvious thing, namely building more housing then some of that money would have a place to go instead of just driving up the prices of existing houses.
I recall seeing some article in which people were arguing that a council relaxing zoning laws to make more/cheaper housing possible was a "government taking" as it would reduce the value of their homes. Unfortunately I don't recall where/when so I can't guarantee it's not my mind merging unrelated stories.
Or (because it's insane) the onion :D