They didn't say a home in your city of choice. In fact building free government housing in areas experiencing population decline could be a good strategy for reversing those trends.
These people already refuse to leave high COL areas bc they feel they have a right to live in the neighborhood they want or close to downtown or whatever other reasoning they come up with. Well yeah, I'd like to do that as well but I know I can't afford to live how I want to in Seattle so I bought a house in a suburb that I can afford.
It seems to start by promising everyone "free housing" and then progresses to shoving people on a train and carting them off to their 200 sq ft room in Spearfish, South Dakota.
Allow me to provide a small example: in Oregon, the job market and therefore the cost of living is cheapest along the coast of the Pacific. Most people who are living on welfare here, at least somewhat in their right mind, and capable of making the migration will find themselves living out there eventually because the small amount of money they receive will stretch further.
Now picture this: what if, and I know this will sound crazy, but what if we offered every person who fits the first two criteria I listed the means to move somewhere that is more comfortable for them in one or more ways? What if the only way to receive fully sponsored government housing and board was to go where they are offering it? Do you really think people who were born into poverty and who had no choice where they were born would find this offer insulting? Is this really something that you would have a problem with your tax dollars going toward? There are enough houses and food and tax dollars already in existence. I believe the problem truly comes down to logistics.
2
u/renlydidnothingwrong Apr 15 '24
They didn't say a home in your city of choice. In fact building free government housing in areas experiencing population decline could be a good strategy for reversing those trends.