I definitely appreciate reading points of view very different than my own, but—even aside from the US-centricity pointed out by other commentors—it seems to me

I definitely appreciate reading points of view very different than my own, but—even aside from the US-centricity pointed out by other commentors—it seems to me that the author has got some things obviously wrong, most principally the relation between wealth and access to public transport: It is pretty clear that most US residents do not have meaningful access to public transport at all, and even fewer have access to high-quality transport (i.e. clean, safe and pleasant vehicles with turn-up-and-go frequency within a short walk). Those that do are naturally concentrated in just a few major (and mainly older) cities—NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, Washington and the like—which are also some of the most expensive places to live. Even within those cities, housing near transport routes tends to be more valued and thus more expensive. So yes: the people who have the best access to transit tend to be those who have higher incomes. (This is true in Europe too, albeit not so markedly since even less-well-off areas tend to have at least a decent basic service.) The US, having built itself into a configuration that makes public transport mostly non-viable, can't easily fix this. In that context it probably _does_ make sense to try to provide basic automobiles to those who can't afford them. But don't pretend that this is anything other than a band-aid on the gaping wound that is poor decisions about land-use.