from my perspective that is a much lower standard because it is uncomprehending of the second order effects of any right that gives you something rather than st

from my perspective that is a much lower standard because it is uncomprehending of the second order effects of any right that gives you something rather than stops others from doing something to you (commonly known as positive rights). Most notably this violates article 4 and 17 (but likely others as well) because it requires you to forcefully take from someone to be able to give that shelter to someone else. Further, this type of nonsense rarely solves the problem it is attempting to solve because it doesn't address what is almost always a market power abuse by government or powerful corporations/people (in this case mostly government getting too agressively in the way of my right to do what I want with my property via zoning and permits. The solution is relaxing zoning heavily and requiring fast approval/ low prices on permits and then letting time and people's desire to profit maximize to build out the housing stock we want and need. This requires stealing from noone, instead it requires giving the people more of their freedom back to actually solve the problem. Maybe saying it is a more restrictive and complex standard, which makes it likely to be garbage by design as it contradicts itself and leads to unexpected second and third order negative effects would be a more accurate (which is not to say constitutions are better, they also often suffer from stupid levels of complexity and contradiction, more it says positive rights are unintelligent and foolish).