Oh, that's good. Those are institutionalized builders who hold inventory. Let them go. Let builders who are paid workers to do the job, whose income doesn't depend on house price but is described in contract between owner, bank and the builder. What's wrong with such a schema?
Most houses are not built 1:1 with the land underneath it. Builders buy larger plots and then use it to make multiple houses. So a builder would need to enter at least the land risk in your scheme still.
Then if they had to wait for each plot and future house sale to occur before pricing the sale they couldn't get economies of scale.
Effectively your scheme turns every house into a more complicated bespoke futures contract with more parties involved.
There maybe benefits to that but it doesn’t seem like a system designed to get more houses built.
>Builders buy larger plots and then use it to make multiple houses.
Most people that had their house built decades ago don't realize the requirements for things like runoff control in modern subdivisions. In the past your water was someone else's problem, which as populations grew lead to some people getting screwed when flood waters reached new heights because of all the new impermeable land. Water impounding and runoff control are very hard to build by an individual unless they have a large chunk of land (which acts as the sink). Any dense new SFH typically ends up in a MUD that provides all the utilities and water controls and this is insanely expensive unless distributed across a large number of units.
If we want to control housing prices it won't be by building more SFH. It will be by building more dense style housing.
