That sounds nice but HOW do you expand property rights?
Allow property owners greater liberty to develop and transfer their property.
(1) Single-family zoning often prohibits so-called “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs) or “granny flats” which potentially could add marginal but important housing supply. Efforts to allow these in Seattle are in the process of failing due to NIMBY opposition, while San Jose has allowed properties to be developed more fully with two houses on one standard lot.
(2) Minimum lot size requirements allow homeowners to have large back yards, but what if the owner would rather put a second house in the back (like in San Jose)? What if the owner would rather sell part of the back yard to someone who wants to build a tiny house? That size requirement undercuts the owner’s property rights.
(3) Unrelated occupancy restrictions make housing unaffordable to singles by limiting their ability to split rent among multiple individuals. These restrictions should be up to the property owner, while government occupancy standards should be the same whether or not individuals are related. e.g. Nashville and Lubbock restrict unrelated occupancy to three; I know of a college town that limit it to two.
In a tight rental market - as exists today in many areas - a marginal increase in supply can have a significant economic impact.
Poor people without property necessarily depend on the property rights of others. Relying on government as the source of property rights seldom ends well for the poor.
And it might not end well for the middle class as well, if Kelo stands.