Something cannot both be a good investment and accessible to all. The decision was made to make them a good investment, and thus our lazy, entitled economy that is addicted to foreign goods and services became what it is today.
Roads are a perfect example of a good investment that is accessible to all. It's called a "common good", and it exists.
When someone includes statements in an argument that can be trivially disputed, they should fully expect those weak points to be disputed. The rest of the argument, imo, does not deserve critique until the trivially disputable points are resolved.
Without the limitations of zoning, a single-family home could be worth the same as several apartments in a 4-plex minus construction costs. As density increases, low-density housing becomes more valuable, and high-density housing remains accessible, a process that then resets for the next generation.
You can't exactly force people to sell SFHs either, but that doesn't stop developers from finding a few adjacent parcels to join together. (Rather, it's not the difficulty that stops them, it's typically zoning.)
At some point it becomes a government handout. Ok, so every person of 25 gets a 90%-off-your-first-home-voucher. So all the private companies building homes are getting 90% of their money straight from the government. This very quickly leads to a nimbyism/conservative local political environment which puts a stop to it.