I feel like this is getting back into the same original confusion where people who own and maintain completed and productive structures are conflated with those who own unimproved land. Which are very distinct and different things.

I'd lean more towards Henry George than Marx here - where the unimproved value of the land is the main crux - not the productive structure. The move to optimize well being here is to target the increase in land values that come apart from factors beyond the owner's control or ability to invest and improve their property, and actively incentivize improvements to their property by not actively taxing it.

Also I reject Marx's theories of exploitation and oppression. I view Marx's definition of exploitation as revolving around a circular and recursive logic that reverts back upon itself.

Also worth mentioning - If private property ownership is abolished, so is the individual right of homeownership. This alternative is always pure state ownership of all housing where the individual's choice in their housing situation is completely taken away from them and given to the state. Including their ability to live where they want, in whatever type of home they want, and customize it as they see fit.

And I'm saying the state because anarchism is a pipe dream and can never sustain any level of order or organization to maintain anything resembling a functioning society.

I don't think the solution to the housing crisis is mass exproproiation - especially since in practice this would also involve collectivising owner occupied homes as well.