I’m not sure that’s true. Throughout the history of squatters rights, the issue is the idea that property that isn’t being used by the owner is potentially better utilized by people who are actively possessing it. It’s a social choice to favor possession over ownership under specific conditions.
There are various flare ups in western history where it was determined to vest rights for possession versus ownership in abstentia - and they invariably resulted from when livable property was in shortage. This happened in various peasant revolts, the settlement of the US West, and in post-war Europe.
The US is unquestionably in the midst of a compelling housing crisis. It’s clearly a policy choice for a society to make and there’s good arguments in both directions. But I don’t think “this is no longer valid” holds up.
But that doesn’t mean that the idea can’t be refined to find the right balance.