Doesn’t that answer my question, then? There’s nothing inherently wrong if not everyone can afford to live in desirable cities. This comes off as a ba

Doesn’t that answer my question, then? There’s nothing inherently wrong if not everyone can afford to live in desirable cities. This comes off as a bad faith counter-argument. AlotOfReading has explicitly stated he believes there exist nuances of substance to this discussion. This response completely ignores his statements in favor of what may be a false dichotomy. teakettle42: How could one address AlotOfReading's concerns about exclusionary policy making and resource allocation? I'm of the thinking that it is fine to say one subscribes to the belief that one can't simply live where one chooses for a variety of reasons, but it's another thing to condone, implicitly or otherwise, that only certain classes of people may live in desirable areas. I feel doing so is antithetical to a society that values social mobility. What I _do_ feel is an under discussed thread of this topic are policies and practices that could be put in place to allow for a greater number of people to have an _opportunity_ to live in such areas. Low income housing, zoning changes, and tax incentives geared towards improving the socioeconomic diversity of an area are some approaches. Unfortunately, none of these things are possible without local political support or overarching legislation/policy requiring it--bringing us full circle to Manuel_D's original comment.