People can also "choose" no to pay for food and eventually die of hunger. To describe paying for basics like its a choice is highly insulting to those who cannot afford those basics.
With the same morality it would be highly insulting to those who cant get food to worry about taxing properties in the city so middle-class have better access to them.
But even more, it would be more practical to understand why are people paying such high rents, not only because of housing supply, but because of the concentration of work in the cities, once again, making it way more sustainable to live in a city than in the country side.
It's an economic model. If you're starving you'll choose to spend all your money on food and none of it on rent. And you'll choose to buy the cheapest food. Incidentally I don't believe it helps for you to get offended on behalf of the starving.
But even more, it would be more practical to understand why are people paying such high rents, not only because of housing supply, but because of the concentration of work in the cities, once again, making it way more sustainable to live in a city than in the country side.