I think it's more that there is an imminently obvious solution (housing subsidy based off of income, on a sliding scale. And letting that reach 100% for poorer people if needed), but instead we've opted for setting aside stock, which causes a whole range of problems in itself.

So the whole "affordable housing" thing becomes a sort of fiscal cliff: you make a dollar over this amount, and suddenly you lose all the benefits.

Of course it makes sense to help out the less fortunate more than someone who makes more, but maybe there are easier ways.

An example of what some other places do: France offers housing subsidies where the only restrictions are that you're "for real" renting the place (not living at a relative's house). Then it's only a function of your income and age (and capped at something like 80% of your total rent)

I believe I'm entitled to the same benefits we give to the bottom 40% of the population and I believe I'm entitled to think this based on my reading of the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Creating housing where only the poor can live is not equal protection under the law.

Do you also believe you should get food stamps?

Given there exist software engineers at Google who sleep in their vans ... maybe yes if the OP's employer doesn't have free food? At least in tech, we don't have student loans. I've heard of Doctors leaving the Bay area because they were fed up of housing + commute. Have you seen the prices in MV downtown? Apartments seem to have doubled in prices. In my opinion, what happened is low interest rates allowed some big hedge funds/property management companies to buy all the properties in the prime spots ... they did a bit of renovation, tagged the places as luxury apartments and here we are. My last place, the apartment manager mentioned that some 2 bedroom apartment had 4 roommates .. that's how people afford this crap.

We could do this all day.

I like the idea of vouchers, a basic income, and slow slope / no income guidelines.

On the topic of food, I can legally shop for food where the poor shop. Around here it is Aldi. If Aldi ever said, "due to federal subsidies and local laws we can't allow you to shop here because of your income" then I would have a problem.

My county social services are the best I've seen so far. I can get some types of medical care for free and have access to the food pantry. They do ask for income, but don't deny free access based on your answers. It is the closest social programs I've seen that align with my ideology of equal access for all.

I'm not the person you're asking, but I don't think it's "entitled" to expect that government policy should at least try to address the needs of the average citizen.