It's been my experience that the farther you let an undesirable process proceed, the higher the chance that it will reach its undesirable conclusion. The enforcers will make decisions based on sunk costs; there will be more loopholes for the grifters to exploit; the time demands of due process will let them manipulate to their benefit; and there will be higher consequences for disrupting the status quo (e.g. there will be people actual living in the buildings already).

Here's an even better suggestion: withdraw federal and state funding for roads, schools, water and sewage &c if housing targets are not met. The local NIMBYS will come around once the potholes become too bad and the school's roof starts leaking.

Sounds like a way to end up with shoddy, dangerous housing or incomplete or impossible to complete projects.

Didn't China try something like this and end up with crumbling skyscrapers that were totally uninhabitable and expensive to replace?