I think both you and OP have a point. The way it ties together is that "owner-occupied housing as a retirement plan" creates the political demand for NIMBY supp

I think both you and OP have a point. The way it ties together is that "owner-occupied housing as a retirement plan" creates the political demand for NIMBY supply restrictions. When people have 500% of their net worth tied up in a single piece of property, that created very strong incentives to lobby for policies that prop up the value of that asset. You take away the tax incentives, and the mortgage subsidies. People probably still wind up with similar monthly payments. But now as a percentage of their wealth, housing becomes much less important. A 10% decline in home prices no longer leads to a global financial crisis. That makes it a lot easier to build a political coalition to increase housing supply.