One of the first homes we did was a principal in Oakland. He was just able to make it work on a single income.
Everything else requires trade-offs. - If you allow educator salaries to track property values instead of CPI, you create massive inequities between school districts. Maybe a regional inflation index that includes housing costs? - If you raise salaries, you have to raise taxes. - If you build teacher-specific housing, you're just passing the buck to the next profession.
Regardless of all the above, I think you'll need mechanisms for people to share the investment risks of expensive land ownership. I'm not sure mortgage insurance is the best mechanism -- hence Landed.
Allowing teachers to make more money doing easier work in an easier environment because housing prices are higher is a terrible idea. At the same time, teachers have to be able to afford to live in areas they're teaching in.
Combining the above two, teacher salaries really need to rise across the board.
This is not necessarily true, as the assessed value of all land in the area is "increased", additional tax revenue is gained without "raising" taxes. As assessed values fall, the chances of a budget shortfall increase.
To me, increase density as a solution to affordability, is as effective as adding additional highway lanes to reduce traffic congestion.