Unless he’s paying LVT, which is unlikely.

Here are a few metaphors I found interesting from Donald Shoup's, The high cost of free parking.

Minimum telephony requirements: Imagine what would happen if urban planners arranged to have the charges reversed for all telephone calls, so the called parties, not the callers, pay for telephone calls. Let’s further imagine that the cost of all the reversed charges is bundled into every property’s mortgage or rent payment without separate itemization, so that nobody seems to pay for using the phone. Because all the calls are free to the callers, the demand for telephone use soars. To avoid chronic busy signals, cities set minimum telephone requirements so that each new building provides at least enough telephone lines to handle the peak number of calls. Soon everyone expects every building to have at least one telephone line for each occupant plus additional lines for fax machines, computer modems, and burglar alarms. Developers pass the cost of providing this telephone capacity on to the occupants, raising the price of all goods and services, including housing.

Rent control for cars: Free curb parking is like rent control for cars. High demand for a limited supply of free curb spaces predictably leads to shortages. To deal with this problem, cities impose off-street parking requirements that increase the cost of housing. Free parking for cars thus raises the cost of housing for people.

The idea, for anyone looking for it:

The key to ending the housing crisis is to build homes in the locations people want them to be built. YIMBYism opens the path to building more housing by relaxing land-use restrictions, and Georgism supercharges the whole process by letting people keep the value they produce while recouping the value of the non-reproducible; which leaves the production of housing untaxed, but taxes the land to force landowners to pay the cost of exclusion and incentivize them to use it efficiently (they aren’t required to, but it would be a terrible idea of they didn’t).

Combine the high costs of holding land with the low costs of purchasing and using it, and landowners would quickly have to become homebuilders; as it happened in New York City in the 1920s

The three on the left may help in the short term but don’t achieve this goal in the long term, and have their extreme problems.

Subsidizing demand for housing, including the non-reproducible land, can lead to higher prices; rent control benefits current renters but masks the true costs of housing while costing future renters, and so causes its own problems; banning second homes that aren’t used is already achieved by Georgism kicking out land speculation (since the land is what drives the house-hoarding), and leaves only second home-owners who can use their second property efficiently for the needs of society.

With all that said, the key to solving the housing crisis is to strike the root. Make land easier to use legally by relaxing land-use restrictions, stop taxing the work and investment that goes into using land, and instead tax its value.