This is the same question pg asked about income inequality in general; if IPO'd founders or hedge-fund managers are mind-bogglingly-rich, why would that piss off anyone else? How does that hurt them?

And yet people are and would be pissed.

The fact that are super rich is awesome. The fact that there is millions of people without health care and access to good food and education is a real problem.

People are jealous and have been pretty good at coming up with reasons why certain people don't deserve nice things for quite some time.

I think the comment refers to the fact that under a lottery many others would not have the opportunity.

By taking your hard earned money away to fund such schemes (taxes, you know?)

So, people will be angry that someone stops net receiving tax money and starts net paying tax money (relative to the services they receive)?

Don't get me wrong, I know full well many people are irrational and petty - but aren't these people that'll find some other irrational detail to get angry about?

Being angry that a cheap system for welfare helps someone get off welfare makes no sense. Especially if one disagree with having a welfare system?

That's only true if your country is completely covered in houses up to the maximum possible height of buildings. I'm not aware of any such country (or even city or town -- possibly Singapore or Hong Kong come close).

You assume that limiting factor for houses is land, but in real world it's infrastructure, especially transportation.

Fine, housing and roads. I'm still wondering which country the OP lives in where both housing and infrastructure are so dense that "when someone buys a big house, someone else must have a smaller house."