One of the things I always find frustrating about economists and economic writing is how often it completely and deliberately disregards the humanity of the actors in the system. My hunch is that the people who are drawn to economics like it specifically because it attempts to offer a cleaner, more mechanical understanding of human behavior than humans actually demonstrate.

But, of course, using that model to then derive policy is obviously flawed since your model doesn't accurately capture the essential features of the objects being modeled.

If we let economists design furniture, every chair would be a miserably unpleasant cube whose dimensions match the median posterior.

Land value tax does have a lot going for it, but it overlooks one critical component:

Humans have a fundamental desire for stability, especially in where they live. I do not want my home to be a rectangle of maximum market efficiency. I want it to be a place where it's worth the effort to garden because I know I'll get to watch those plants grow over the coming years. I want it to be a calm respite, a sanctuary that I can rely on in the face of the chaos of the larger world. And, as I get older and my ability to generate revenue natural declines, I want some confidence that hard work I did when I was younger will enable me to live out the rest of my years with some degree of stability.

Of course, our desire for stability needs to be weighed against the desires of the larger community. But you do that by balancing those desires, not by completely ignoring one half of the equation.

I'm not sure what an ideal solution for housing is, but I'm certain it's not based on a slavish devotion to market efficiency.