At the federal level the housing supply is excessive to the point of Detroit house prices being close to negative, some counties in Kansas and Oklahoma providing free land if only people move there, dying coal towns in Appalachians having an oversupply if available housing and Mississippi delta towns being relatively cheap to place people in manufactured housing?

Sure, that doesn’t solve the problem of everyone who’s homeless in LA or SF, but then where do you draw a line on people’s preferences vs reasonable availability?

If a million new homeless people decide they would rather move to LA and not Kansas, should the federal government accommodate accordingly? What if then they say they’d really prefer Santa Monica to East LA? What if within Santa Monica most express the preference for proximity to the ocean and walking distance to downtown amenities?

Where does the federal government then draw a line on providing essential services vs catering to someone’s lifestyle preferences?