[Qwertystop]

"modern city", maybe not, but there's a world of difference between, say, a shack in the woods and an apartment with aircon/heating/insulation (as appropriate) and easy access to groceries.

I don't know where the line is, but if you say the basic right is just "house", and that gets enforced, someone's going to try to draw that line as low as they can. Probably a few developers try to argue that if everyone gets a house then zoning laws need to be relaxed so they can afford it, and (hyperbole) we're back to windowless apartments with one room per family and one bathroom per floor.

[whatshisface]

Evicting Jeff Bezos from wherever he lives wouldn't help a shack-dweller unless you gave Bezos' old house to the woodsman. So, I would say that the woodsman doesn't care about inequality, instead any benefit he could get would come from an improvement in his own fortunes (irrespective of what happens to anyone else). If inequality was the problem, then bad things happening to someone would help everyone who was worse off than them, but if Bill Gates gets cancer, nobody is better off.

[harimau777]

The issue with inequality comes when someone uses it to consume a sufficiently disproportionate amount of the resources that there is not enough for everyone else.

For example, if a group of billionaires bought up all of the property in New York City that would then mean that there wouldn't be any left for anyone else.

[Qwertystop]

Assuming that Bezos lives in a fairly large house (and/or has several houses), evicting him could help quite a lot of people previously living in small shacks. I grew up in a NY suburb and you could probably fit two families (three in the larger ones) in any house in the neighborhood without anyone being particularly uncomfortable, and with no construction beyond the conversion of a half-bathroom to a full-bathroom. Given funding to more thoroughly renovate, you might be able to manage three. And that's just upper-middle-class suburbia, not billionaire mansions.