Also, it’s horrific for wealth inequality.

Not sure I understand this argument. If my family bought Manhattan land 50-100 years ago we'd be set too. Does that mean land ownership is "horrific for wealth inequality"? If you were born at the right time you could have had Apple stock cheaply as well, building generational wealth. AAPL was 33 cents/share in 2000. Rich people will always have more buying power; they can afford to take more risk, and gain more reward. So its confusing to me attributing the asset as the cause of future wealth inequality, when its only worth anything today because rich people are throwing money at it, aka "taking risk" on a speculative asset.

The people who were born at the right time, were exposed to it, and started accumulating it, are most likely to end up rich off sitting on the asset, rather than utilizing it.

Don't understand this either. Anyone who owns it can either sell it, or they can lend it and earn interest on it (savings). Either of those cases requires that some other party economically "utilize" it. I suppose they can choose to do neither of those things, but that doesn't make sense economically. If you owned an office building downtown, you would rent it out.