>You didn't buy the house from the government and they don't owe you any right to not meet any poor people.

Ignoring the snark, arguments like these stop making sense when the government is actively tipping the scales by manipulating the housing market in that area. You can make arguments for the morality of it, but arguments along the lines of the government not owing one group something are pretty weak when you're literally supporting the government owing another group something. The government can owe whoever and whatever we want them to owe.

No one can be anything better than their parents were? My father and mother were drugged out losers and I’m not that at all. This comment is condescending and paternalistic. It’s something that would only be said by an out of touch elite who needs to “save the poor”.

I used to live in a highly integrated neighborhood. The neighbors across the street were section 8. I had no problem with that. What I did have a problem with is when my daughter was playing in the front yard and their son ran outside screaming shooting his rifle as a car peeled out down the street. This was of course on mother’s day while my mother-in-law was on the phone.

We moved to the most expensive neighborhood we could afford after that. And you know what? The worse thing I’ve had to deal with was some neighbors having a slightly heated conversation at 11pm on their front porch.

If that hadn’t been an option, if everywhere had this “affordable housing”, we’d have just moved three hours away and bought 100 acres and lived in a trailer instead. I’m not going to risk my daughters safety to fulfill some equity agenda.

Sorry, I think I'm not communicating myself well.

My concern is that class stagnation, where one cannot be anything more than the class they were born to, is a bad thing that we must work hard to prevent from happening. Keeping poor people out of nice schools? That is a thing that causes class stagnation.

> We moved to the most expensive neighborhood we could afford after that.

Right, and what if that neighbourhood had raised prices, locking you out of that option? What if that neighbourhood re-zoned it's school district to ensure no one with less than $K/year income could possibly afford to go there? That's what class stagnation is all about, locking you and your daughter into where you are so that you cannot become anything more than you were born.

Affordable housing means poverty is not isolated in a single, dense community. It gives those born into families with lower incomes the option to go to better schools- as you have with your daughter.

You made it- wouldn't it be good if more people could? Or are you the type to say "Got mine, fuck the rest of you"?

I think the argument is that if there's a low density of this economic integration, you won't have the screaming & rifle shooting. I'm not sure that's true.... but... 1) it's harder to hear the neighbors screaming at each other across a bigger yard, 2) sometimes neighborhood dynamics cause trouble, by giving the feeling the sort of thing you describe is more or less ok/normal, and 3) there is a social pressure that happens the does subtly push people to conform, perhaps thereby breaking them out of the rifle-shooting habit.

The Gini coefficient seems to indicate that high degrees of economic integration results in more crimes, not less [1]. My current neighbors might not do fewer drugs (I suspect the issue was a drug deal gone bad) but maybe keep it quieter. The police would likely respond to such an event immediately here, whereas it took them over an hour to respond before. Then again that might just be because very little (reported) crime is happening here anyway. I hate that I live in this giant house far away from the city because one bad apple made it feel too dangerous to live in our previous house. It felt like the only reasonable choice available to us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient