I don't think liberals disagree that wider home ownership would be a great solution, but rather that enabling renters-who'd-rather-own to do so is very difficul

I don't think liberals disagree that wider home ownership would be a great solution, but rather that enabling renters-who'd-rather-own to do so is very difficult. The usual solution is to tell people to move to somewhere cheaper. But doing moving (a) costs money that many renters don't have, (b) often means a lower-paid job, so they're net no better off, (c) destroys culture and community, forcing people out of areas their families and community have lived in for many years and away from all their support networks, and (d) assumes that it's just a simple matter of dollars, rather than a much more complex combination of different life skills, different expectations and values, health issues, language issues, etc, etc, etc. Slowing down gentrification (which has other side-effects not discussed here as well) is (a) something that can be relatively simply enacted (via zoning, or rent controls, or etc) can avoid all those issues. But doesn't address the longer term issue that there is a large cohort using that protection, and basically just kicks the can down the road as they, and their children, never get to start building the generational wealth of home ownership. Liberals tend to value the personal, community and cultural outcomes; conservatives tend to value the absence of government control. None of which addresses the point of hypocrisy: liberals are all for anti-gentrification until it's the property they own that is subject to rent control, and conservatives are all in favor of minimal governance until someone builds a factory next to their dream home. It's a human condition, independent of political leaning.