Critics of the current housing strategy argue that government intervention is actually exacerbating the crisis by introducing legal uncertainty and discouraging private investment. By decoupling rents from inflation and shifting bureaucratic costs onto landlords, the 2023 Housing Law and subsequent measures have created a two-tier system that makes it less attractive to put properties on the market. Skeptics warn that when the government makes it difficult for property owners to recover their assets or adjust prices, the natural response is a reduction in supply, which only drives prices higher for everyone.
Many industry analysts suggest that the focus should be on removing the 'bottlenecks' that prevent new construction, such as complex zoning laws and slow permitting processes. They argue that the government is misdiagnosing the problem by blaming 'greedy profiteers' rather than addressing the structural lack of finalist land ready for development. By prioritizing short-term political fixes over long-term market health, the government risks creating a more rigid and less efficient housing sector that fails to respond to actual demand.
Furthermore, there is concern that the government's reliance on public construction is unrealistic given the current pace of building. Critics point out that the state’s target of 30,000 to 50,000 homes annually is far from being met, and that relying on public funds to solve a massive supply deficit is fiscally unsustainable. Instead of punitive measures that alienate landlords and developers, they advocate for policies that encourage private-public partnerships and streamline the path for new residential projects to reach the market quickly.