No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that they be given the choice of moving somewhere else, of their choice, with subsidies for the move, or trying to go it alone in pl

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that they be given the choice of moving somewhere else, of their choice, with subsidies for the move, or trying to go it alone in place. And this only for those people who fall in that gap between (approximately) the national low-income line and the local "low-income" line. People who fall below the national low-income line should be given subsidies, regardless of where they live. I believe in helping people, but not subsidizing irrational behavior that exacerbates an existing problem. Just think about how this looks to someone like me: the low-income threshold in CA is over twice my household income. And I am not classified as low-income. So to some degree my tax dollars will be transferred to subsidize some terrible decision-making. If this looks bad to me, a liberal, think how it looks to moderates and conservatives! Let's take this to the logical extreme: suppose I decide to live literally in Hollywood hills, where one of my relatives lives. I make nowhere near enough to survive there. Should I be subsidized anyway? Does it make a difference if I was born in Hollywood and this situation arose subsequently? I think not, when it comes to the question of what should be done about it now, although reasonable minds may differ.