Sometimes I try to imagine what things that we take for granted today will be looked back on in 50 or 100 years with at least firm disapproval if not horror. I usually can't come up with much except animal cruelty, but I do think that single family zoning and related zoning issues in our large cities and metropolitan areas will be one of those things.
Regarding economically disadvantaged areas, one of the great side effects of the way the USA is set up, with a common currency and a (now) large degree of federal taxing authority, is that there is a natural tendency to see redistribution from richer states to poorer states. But I don't know how much of that you see within each state, would be interesting to see if there is research along those lines. I don't think we'd even need to institute a new UBI to increase this power, just increase social security, medicare, medicaid, and welfare payments would probably be easier. I also like at least the idea of liberalizing immigration contingent upon settling in economically needed areas, though admit that has some troublesome practical aspects.
I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea of starting a bunch of UBI experiments here to see if we can find something that works, but does anyone else feel like Yang's proposal to use campaign funds to give 10 families $1k/month for a year might backfire if it gives the whole idea a "publicity stunt" quality? I admit that for all that I've been hearing about UBI in the past few years, this is probably an idea that hasn't really spread beyond a relatively wealthy and high info-consuming group of people, so maybe something like this will push UBI out into the consciousness of the working and middle classes in a way that think pieces in mostly liberal "highbrow" publications can never accomplish, but still just feels a little off to me.