system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Social housing and welfare recipients should not live in prime locations in major cities

Example in point is London, which is amongst the most expensive cities in the world. Owning a property is out reach for most people with the average price for a house being over 13 times relative to average earnings. This is a result of the skyrocketing property prices which many global cities has experienced over the past 15 - 20 years. As a result, many people are priced out of renting, let alone buying, and must compromise by living in flat shares on the outskirts of the city with long commutes to their place of work – from which they pay substantial taxes. This is unless you are on benefits, since there is a signifiant portion of social housing located in central and prime locations across London. Such would be the cost of living in these places, due to their locations, that most people are sensible enough to not even dream about living there; however the system rewards a select number of people, who has effectively hit the state-handout jackpot – at a great cost to actual taxpayers who pay for their privilege through taxation. In comparison, the majority of the recipients, who have lucked out, are not in any form of employment (source available). They also create crime hotspots in their free accommodation, so that it is common sense for any outsider to avoid these places, unless you wish to take your heightened chances on getting mugged or stabbed. 
It would be cheaper for the taxpayer, whilst also reducing the resentment felt towards these people, if they ceased all social-housing in prime London. The money raised from selling the valuable land could be put to use in  creating new accommodation in less desirable areas, while also funding increased services such as police and healthcare – which have been largely cut back in recent years.  


One of the common argument is that because these people were born in the area, they have the inalienable right to continue to live there – despite the cost to the taxpayer. People in employment do such hold such entitlement, and regularly move around for work and for affordable housing options, so why shouldn’t benefit recipients? Another argument, which perhaps I am more sympathetic to, is that this helps to integrate people from poor backgrounds, reduce class divide and to avoid ghettoisation. Again, this comes at a great cost to the very people who never have the prospect of ever living in such prime locations, whilst also failing in the hopes at preventing class divide and ghettoisation, with the only effect being that nearby neighbourhoods suffer a high rate of crime.

 
I am unsure how the system works in the other countries, however speaking from a UK perspective it is a ridiculous and unjust state of affairs (for disclosure, I do live in a cramped flat-share on the outskirts). I am hoping that I can have my view changed; or at least pacified, so that I do not hold such resentment to the situation.
gpt
All locations within a city are prime locations. That is the nature of being in a city. What you are stating is that poor people should not live in the city. That government owned housing within a city should not be utilized to assist the poor, and the people who own property within a city but temporarily need assistance should have that property stripped from them.

You have to remember that most people who are on welfare are on it temporarily. It is due to job loss, injury, or some other temporary hardship.