Well are you going to sell your land at a price poor people can afford or only the wealthy? You're going to sell it for the "best" (measured by maximizing dollar amount) price you can.

So, read my comment carefully, you're not ruling by security/fear, you're squeezing the poor by playing along with market rules, you big squeezing squeezer.

If you give someone land below market value, they will probably just sell it and pocket the difference. It's functionally equivalent to just giving them cash. If they want land they can go buy it.

If you sell land below market value to someone who already has a place to live they will probably just sell it and pocket the difference.

If you sell land below market value to someone who has no other place to live, they will live on it and use the money to buy books, healthcare, tools, nutritious food and cooking utensils.

Thus stands my statement that landowners squeeze the poor.

Anybody with money 'squeezes the poor' by not giving it to them. Land is no different. You don't have to 'live on land' - most people don't.

So if by 'land' we mean 'any place to live' then why not make that a civil right, instead of putting the burden on landowners? E.g. people need tools, books, education too and the folks that 'own' those aren't being criticized as squeezers.

If you sell land below market value to someone who has no other place to live, they will live there only so long as it will take to arrange to move somewhere cheaper when they sell their land for market value and pocket the difference. They will then have money left over to spend on healthcare, tools, etc.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that landowners squeeze the poor more than anyone else does.