The structures built on land usually depreciate over time. It’s the land value that appreciates. So building new stock would still increase demand for land which would increase prices everywhere.
Existing structures targeting lower density and higher cost per square foot could be repurposed and optimized for affordability. Even policy changes regarding what new projects are permissible would go a long way.
Are you making the argument that it's an economic/geographic impossibility to house more people for less money rather than an issue of political/social will?
I’m not saying it’s impossible to house the homeless. The OC was saying that the homeless is not housed because building houses for the homeless would lower real estate prices. I was just pointing out that it’s likely the opposite would happen: real estate prices would go up. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.
Think about it like this: housing the homeless is a subsidy. Subsidies increase demand.
Giving homes to the homeless would increased demand for housing, which would increase the price of houses, no?