That goes for any housing construction. If we didn't build any at all, we could get the prices of land, building materials and construction workers WAY down.

I don't buy this argument. The farmers I speak to who are close to cities enjoy the increased value of farmland as that allows them to take out very cheap loans with the farmland as collateral. Aspiring farmers don't want to buy farmland close to cities anyway as it's risky and expensive. So it benefits existing farmers and doesn't really damage aspiring farmers. And regarding utility contractors and building materials. Those going to building housing is what we want no? Or do you prefer we stop building housing so that building materials for building data centers and mega mansions is cheaper instead? I'm guessing that's not what you want.

No it's not impossible. The state can go in and build houses and rent them out and because it's the state there doesn't have to be a profit motive. I used to live in social housing for 8 years and thought it was great. However if there is no social housing construction and private investment is needed to get more housing built then there has to be a profit motive else no one will be motivated to build. However I'm against exorbitant rents. There has to be a balance. No profit at all (+no current social housing program) simply leads to no housing. At least not rental housing. People are of course free to build their own homes but that's not the solution either as not everyone has the money to do so.

I would personally argue that any wealthy individual under capitalism is only able to be wealthy on the basis of exploitation. In my view labor creates value, so no matter how far you have to go back you will always find rampant exploitation of labor when you see a wealthy individual or family.

This is plain to see when you critically think about this idea of development of land into housing for landlords to rent out. The landlord (wealthy individual due to exploitation of labor) buys land, hires people to do labor on it (exploitation), which creates value that's added to said land.

I would also disagree on the idea that landlords are in any way victims of this system, they are more like the benefactors of it, as the system as a whole is set up to benefit their class and is much easier on them. They pay less taxes in a lot of regions, they don't have to sell their labor power to eat, they can always get favored treatment with banks and financial institutions, and, at least where I live, they can send lobbyists to local, state, and federal governing bodies to advocate for their interests with money (bribery).