So the community bears the effort and cost of maintaining houses (or apartments) which they are not allowed to benefit from.

Bear in mind that the community would render aid to anyone who needs assistance in maintaining their own properties as well. It would be mutual aid. For the 'cost' of perhaps choosing to maintain a temporarily empty property, you would never need to 'purchase' a new roof, heater, or repairs for your own home. The community would help you the same way you helped them.

You're also ignoring my mention of the benefit that this mutual aid would enable others to travel to maintained community housing anywhere in the world for free.

I think we would see a significant number of people jumping from home to home, trashing each one and then moving on to the next, leaving the community with the choice of cleaning up those homes, or letting them become uninhabitable hazards, and a blight on the neighborhood.

I think you're putting a bit too much weight into the idea that the only thing keeping most housing stock in good condition is that financial barrier. I think most people would want to keep their home in good condition without financial pressures forcing them to keep it nice. If everyone let their home go into disrepair, then there would be no 'good' homes to jump to. It's in the interests of everyone to maintain good housing stock, so that if you ever did move you wouldn't only have shitholes to choose from.

If you think people would suddenly start taking care of a home just because they have one, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you, just look at all the litter and pollution people dump everywhere. Take a moment and look at cars in parking lots, and I bet you’ll find at least one that is packed to the brim with garbage, to the point of being dangerous to drive.

I'm not saying in this new way of society that everything will just become magically perfect, but I very much doubt it would be an epidemic on the scale you're thinking of. Even in your example of garbage filled cars, you don't find half the parking lot like that, only one at most. Just because a handful of people might not take care of their home doesn't mean it wasn't worth it to stop millions of people worldwide from suffering and dying on the streets, throwing themselves under busses due to hopelessness.

No, there is a financial risk and financial incentive when you own a home, or even rent an apartment. If you don’t take care of it, then you lose out on that risk.

There are millions of dilapidated homes that are owned by the people who live in them. There are thousands upon thousands of rental properties that landlords will let become unlivable and condemned. Owning a property or even having consequences does not stop that from happening.

there are zoning laws, city, state, and national laws that pertain to maintaining a home, along with certifications and inspections to make sure the dwelling is safe to inhabit.

There is nothing stopping a community from continuing to enforce those laws if they desire.

but it’s also clear that “just make housing a right and let anyone move into a house that the community has to pay for and work to maintain” is an idealistic dream that naively handwaves away reality.

"It's easier to imagine an end to the world, than to the end of capitalism."

I'd suggest looking at some more in-depth analysis instead of dismissing the concept off hand from a short comment.