I realize all states do this, but your response does not address my intended point. That's my fault, I will improve my point.
1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all community development spending rather than specifically to federal funds going to single family zoning. Even if a state stops directing federal funds to single family zoned communities, they are still encouraged to not create single family zoned communities.
2. A proposal I would be more comfortable with: if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
[edit follows]
> You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it, but I agree I am shameless in announcing my strong opinions. Hopefully my clarification above gives you something clearer to bite into.
> if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning.
This is specifically about two types of grants (not all federal funds for community development) and it does not require the elimination of single family zoning.
> federal funds going to single family zoning
What does it mean for funds to "go to" single family zoning? CDB grants are largely allocated to specific cites and counties already and the portion that is given to states is mostly spent on projects in urban areas[1].
> if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
The actual proposal is weaker than your proposal since there is no requirement to move towards ending single family zoning.
> Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it
The conversation has moved from "abolish suburbs" to "a proposal to require certain cites to make a plan to implement policies that reduce barriers to housing development". So either you were being disingenuous originally or hadn't researched the topic. It's also the exact sort of emotionally charged rhetoric you were decrying earlier.
1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all community development spending rather than specifically to federal funds going to single family zoning. Even if a state stops directing federal funds to single family zoned communities, they are still encouraged to not create single family zoned communities.
2. A proposal I would be more comfortable with: if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
[edit follows]
> You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it, but I agree I am shameless in announcing my strong opinions. Hopefully my clarification above gives you something clearer to bite into.