Just doing some simple math, there would be enormous dislocation of millions of people around the country, if the liberal dream of complete integration happens through this plan.
Countless millions of inner city residents would be relocated into more affluent or suburban areas. In turn, these areas will see many existing residents relocate to make room for new residents. In turn, many of these areas will go ghetto as more and more Section 8 residents live there.
And as happens in life, those who are more affluent and able to avoid all of this, will move out of areas receiving Section 8 or lower income people, and go live in affluent or rural/small town enclaves.
Liberals and minority activists complained decades ago about “white flight” as white residents moved out of changing areas, so that the remaining residents were mostly minority. The liberals charged that effective integration didn’t happen because whites moved away.
The same sort of impact is predictable here. Though it will not be strictly racial, but will be based on socio/economic status. Those of higher socio/economic status, with the means and ability to move away, will once again move away from troubles caused by liberal social engineering.
Who's going to pay for that?
Maybe not.
The goal has been to make suburban living outrageously expensive. And they are going to do that by denying "Urban Development" funds.
The relocation is going to be out of the suburban sprawl and back into the urban landscape with its new affordable housing.
Consider these earlier discussions:
The Progressives’ War on Suburbia Obama and the Democrats have embraced the argument that suburbs and sprawl are bad for you. As the last election demonstrated, this is no way to get elected. You are a political party, and you want to secure the electoral majority. But what happens, as is occurring to the Democrats, when the damned electorate that just won’t live the way—in dense cities and apartments—that you have deemed is best for them?
Regionalism: Obama’s Quiet Anti-Suburban Revolution It is part of a broader suite of initiatives designed to block suburban development, press Americans into hyper-dense cities, and force us out of our cars. Government-mandated ethnic and racial diversification plays a role in this scheme, yet the broader goal is forced “economic integration.” The ultimate vision is to make all neighborhoods more or less alike, turning traditional cities into ultra-dense Manhattans, while making suburbs look more like cities do now. In this centrally-planned utopia, steadily increasing numbers will live cheek-by-jowl in “stack and pack” high-rises close to public transportation, while automobiles fall into relative disuse. To understand how HUD’s new rule will help enact this vision, we need to turn to a less-well-known example of the Obama administration’s regionalist interventionism.
Obama’s Plan to Depopulate the Suburbs However, this type of publicity would not have been good for the swing voters living in America’s suburbs in the 2012 election. Obama’s people had the video scrubbed as well as the search engine links. However, the Breitbart people retained a copy of the picture. This begs the question, if the Building One America plan is so good for America, then why would the Obama people conceal his affiliation with Krulig and his group of Agenda 21 social engineers? Kruglik’s Agenda 21 Building One America group proposes the creation of a regional tax-base sharing revenues in which suburban tax money is directly redistributed to nearby cities and economically depressed concentric zones of inner-ring suburbs. Building One America also seeks to move the poor out of cities by imposing mandatory low-income-housing quotas for middle-class suburban developments. Here the plans of the Building One America proponents (e.g. Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett). Video at link.