[personasdfghjkl]

Rights are fundamentally a social construct. So the question is not 'what are rights?', but 'how do we define rights?' And there isn't any reason that we have to define rights to only include negative rights, not positive rights. In fact, that kind of a definition would be inconsistent - what value does freedom of speech have without the economic (housing, food, etc.) stability and education (both positive rights) needed to thoughtfully participate in society? What's the point of property rights (negative) if you don't have any property (positive)?

    Also it's possible that reality simply says the right cannot be provided, and reality tends to beat policy.
    I support that goal but it takes careful planning and a lot of hard work. Simply calling it a right and leaving the details for someone else to solve achieves nothing.

This is true of any right. Freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc. did not appear out of nowhere. They were the result of people fighting for them - either making revolution or pressuring governments into guaranteeing those rights. Those fights took a lot of planning, work, and sacrifice. In the same vein, if there was enough political drive to give everyone housing, at least in the West we have enough wealth to achieve that.