Well if that’s the argument, the author is wrong about which Constitutional argument covers this. That’s a 5th Amendment Takings Clause argument, not a 4th Amendment search and seizure argument. That doesn’t mean I disagree with the substantive concern about the Federal Government rationing land use in a Soviet-style state controlled system. But the actual argument made is not Constitutionally correct.
I would resist this as a violation of the 10th Amendment, the 5th, and the 4th. There is also an issue of involuntary servitude if a homeowner is forced to sell to a party against his own wishes.
The bottom line is that in the liberal (socialist) world, private property really doesn't exist. Any property can be controlled by the State for the betterment of the Collective. That is exactly the reasoning behind this draconian program, and one reason it must be resisted, defied, and overturned.
Congress should act to un-fund HUD if this is allowed to continue. Using taxpayer money to oppress taxpayers is about as socialist as it gets.