For what it’s worth, the U.S. is built on the strategy of pushing people who grew up on a piece of ok land onto shittier and shittier land to make way for settl

For what it’s worth, the U.S. is built on the strategy of pushing people who grew up on a piece of ok land onto shittier and shittier land to make way for settlers, until the displaced people are in such remote, harsh places that they can barely survive. So there is precedent for what you’re proposing. But the argument against it is that people have some sort of right to remain in their “homeland”. And that a city whose “native sons” can’t afford to live in it isn’t a healthy city. That a healthy city has places for both rich and poor. For owners and operators. For speculators and locals.