Absolutely. A market adjusts far more rapidly to match supply and demand than any committee ever could, especially as groups of people that set prices have agendas other than seeking movement to a balanced price.
Housing is NOT anything like that kind of market.
Building permits, zoning, NIMBY, various minimums (aside from taxes, thanks Rs for focusing so strongly on less taxes rather than greater value for money...).
Make building the desired type of housing easy; incentivize it until market conditions have been corrected... We're several decades behind at this point, so a huge boom is required to correct prices.
Conversely, you don’t want unsound buildings in earthquake country, but yeah they’re also being abused
We recently moved from Saskatoon to Regina, and our family sold the Saskatoon house. We priced it slightly below market and it sold in 3 days, but there were many similar houses that had been on the market for months. The buyer tried to flip it (it needed love for sure); I'd guess $15-20k worth of supplies plus his own labour. It sat on the market for a long time, and ultimately sold for only $40k more than he paid us for it.
However, 'supply and demand' doesn't care at all about fairness. Richer people will get more of the desired resource than poor people. Poor people might be priced out of the market entirely.
The 'free market' might end up with entire communities being forced to move to a cheaper area because their current location is highly desirable to wealthier people.
In a free market, this might be determined to be a fine outcome: people willing (and able) to pay more for that area get to live there.
Citizens might not think this is an ideal outcome. They might, with valid reasons, feel that poorer, existing, residents should be allowed to stay where they are, even if wealthier people from other areas want to move there.
I am not saying one side is right and the other is wrong, I am saying a free market only solves the efficient use of resources part of the equation, not the other parts.