I don’t dispute that there are levels of affordability that are bad enough that they start to lead to various forms of homelessness, but it doesn’t seem to me like a fundamental rule that, if some people can’t afford to live alone in a large amount of housing, they also can’t afford to live with roommates sharing a smaller amount of housing, and that the right level of housing prices should also price some people out of those arrangements (ie it demands a pretty high level of inequality if you assume that the market allows typical people to afford to live alone and that sharing can typically reduce per-person rents by half or more)

You underestimate how intrusive these people will be to protect the value of the single largest asset most of them will ever own

They'd rather just leave the apartment empty and hope to find a better tenant.

Is that not typically happening only for more egregious situations? E.g. the ban is on more than 3 or 4 unrelated adults living together. There are plausible reasons why that should be regulated, it is not clearly a conspiracy by homeowners to prop up the value of their own homes.

You provide no basis for the idea that the returns on housing have to drop below the point at which its financially viable to build before housing becomes affordable. You just say "because" then restate your premise.

> Markets don't optimize for "everyone gets some", yet that's precisely what you need for housing.

Just because markets don't optimize for it, doesn't mean it doesn't achieve it.

> You'll always need the government to come in at some point to provide for those left behind by the free market.

Disagree.

Our food is supplied via markets and yet with just subsidies almost nobody starves across western countries.