Unfortunately local government is often directly and intentionally responsible for perpetuating de facto segregation. These housing interventions can get off the ground in more liberal areas but they will be total non-starters in much of the country. The federal government has historically been forced to intervene when peoples rights are being systematically violated. Are we to believe the same officials who try to stop black people from voting will do the right thing in their jurisdictions?

> I'm a libertarian at the federal level, but I'm much more receptive to local government interventions and have voted for local tax increases when I live a place that seems to be well-run.

That's an interesting take, but would you agree that it's often the places that aren't particularly well-run that also have the most need for interventions? What if federal programs were conceived as high-touch assistance programs for local government?

What form would that assistance take? Kicking bad politicians out? Rewriting bad laws? Investigating crimes, arresting and prosecuting criminals? Picking up the trash?

No, that would just eleminate the idea of a local government. The only thing they can really do is throw money around, or some glorified variation thereof.

Centralizing power is risky (a lot of things can go wrong), ineffective, and promotes division.

Imagine Congress deciding on one kind of car for everyone in the country -- people in manhattan don't want any car, people in the suburbs want a sedan, outdoor people want a truck, etc. It would be a huge argument dividing everyone in the country into factions and nobody would be happy. It sounds ridiculous, but that's what happens to a small extent with each new federal law that gives more power to the central government. And look what's happening.