Advocates for the PSC and ERC proposal argue that limiting large-scale property purchases is a vital step toward reclaiming the housing market for the public. By curbing the activity of corporate landlords and investment funds, the government can reduce the artificial scarcity that drives up prices for ordinary families. Supporters emphasize that housing is a fundamental right, and when large entities treat residential units primarily as financial assets, the social fabric of neighborhoods suffers.
This policy is viewed as a necessary correction to a market that has become skewed in favor of institutional wealth. When large owners acquire entire blocks or large portfolios, they often outcompete individual buyers who cannot match their capital or speed. By implementing these restrictions, the government creates a more level playing field, allowing more citizens to achieve the stability of homeownership. This is not about punishing investment, but about ensuring that the primary purpose of housing remains providing shelter rather than maximizing speculative returns.
Furthermore, proponents point to the success of similar interventions in other regions where limiting bulk purchases has helped stabilize local prices. They argue that the state has a responsibility to intervene when market forces fail to provide affordable options for the majority of the population. By prioritizing the needs of residents over the interests of large-scale investors, the government can foster more sustainable and inclusive communities. This legislative push is seen as a proactive measure to prevent further displacement and ensure that housing remains accessible to the working and middle classes.