There is no good answer to that.
Either you accept civil liberties of which property ownership is a critical part or you accept that civil liberties like ownership do not matter.
Owning property is a right every human agrees with (it's literally article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). This is why you either need to compensate exhorbitantly or threaten to break a few legs and skulls in order to gain property.
The mass urban housing projects of the 30s to 60s were literally built by mass demolishing black neighborhoods - look at Central Boston's redevelopment for example, as well as Cincinnati's.
And that's why these projects ended once the Civil Rights movement succeeded - why should black residents lose their property and intergenerational wealth to urban projects built by governments that didn't care for them.
Look at how the 1968 DC Riots and 1967 Detroit Riots were exacerbated by HUD plans to revitalize "slums" (black majority neighborhoods) like Capitol Hill and Lafayette Park
> Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes
In return for those taxes they get piped water, roads, police, local schools, sewers, garbage collection, and other basic services.
> resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter
Mass Eminent domain of land only leads to crony capitalism anyhow. Either way it's the same contractors and builders who are doing development - the difference is now instead of wooing voters you just woo the political class instead.
Nor is there actually a need for mass development to alleviate homelessness - housing subsidies can and do help, as SLC and Houston have both shown as well as Section 8.
That said, you will have to follow the law - meaning no substance abuse or criminal activity.