You're close, and those are all reasonable steps.

Re 2: My test is, the owner(s) (all on the title) must _reside_ in the house for at least 35% of the year. That allows summer / winter homes for snowbirds, as well as moves, but makes it impossible to get the tax break on 3 properties in a given year.

House ZONING, anti-NIMBY, is also a major contributing factor. There should be rules much more like Japan's 'impact based' zoning, and automatic approval for plans that obviously surpass minimum standards for various E.G. environmental impact assessments and other forms of red tape. These benefits should also be structured to encourage housing within existing impacted areas (cities, improve density), and give benefits for exceeding minimum codes and being less impactful than allowed.