That's a pretty shitty solution for everyone involved if they don't actually want to be separated from the rest of their family by 3,000 miles. And not just their families, but their friends and communities, which have a profound impact on overall well-being in their later years.
I wouldn't call your suggestion deliberately cruel since you don't seem to have any idea how socially damaging this kind of isolating displacement can be. But I would say that the forced separation of people from their famalies and communities is a really hideous policy outcome, and one that should be strenuously avoided.
Obviously, if somebody wants to move far away, fine. But forcing them to do so is horribly wrong.
You don't need to move 3,000 miles away, you just have to move outside of commuting range where the prices fall off a cliff. You can still live in the same quality house and see your family frequently.
It's nuts to tax Joe Worker who needs to live in that area to get to work double or triple the property tax of the rich old guy next door who spends his days playing golf or w/e.
Eh, "community range" turns out to be pretty massive around the SF Bay Area, for example. Moving people two or more hours away by car can still do a lot of damage to their relationships, especially when their ability to drive is becoming weaker.
No the answer here is "sorry, but no" to all the people who have decided to block density in central areas in order to keep their own property values astronomically high.
There's no good reason why we should be shipping everyone but the richest workers in their economic prime to painfully remote locals because people in San Francisco's Sunset District are blockading the kinds of buildings that make places like Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Brownstone Brooklyn such attractive places to live.
