Nah, a house is an asset. A depreciating asset but an asset nonetheless.
Depreciating asset !== liability.
It can be both, an asset because it is a store of value, a liability because you need to maintain it.
There's substantial value in a legally constructed, code complying, permitted residence. Especially in areas where development is costly and/or frequently difficult to impossible like desirable parts of CA.
Precisely. Houses depreciate, the land they're built on (typically) appreciates.
Yes, though the buildings on the land can be a multiplier that makes up for the cost. I own the leasehold of a flat, and I’m collecting more rent than the freeholder (landholders? I forget the terminology) of the land it’s on is collecting from me as ground rent.
Oh sure, but you have to pay for upkeep. I can rent out a car, that doesn't make it an appreciating asset.
I totally agree with you, unless the house is a rental.