They want to do that in SW Portland in an area full of modest 2-3 br homes on large lots which were built after WW2. A nice place for people with 1-2 children or empty nesters to grow old and keep gardens. Portland wants to tear modest homes down and build condos or apartments for low income people. It would be close to another proposed light rail line.
You know that rent will go up. Those in bigger homes will see their property values go down. If kids move into lowcost housing new schools will have to be built. Be hard to grow kitchen gardens there.

Distorted is a matter of perspective. That link took me to a Biden ad. No article, no plan.  

I read the piece carefully and it also links to Biden’s ad page, but I was able to get to his plan.  So the “distorted” piece also references the plan. From the distorted piece it is clear the plan requires reasoning and lack of local control. Most cities that are considered suburbs or not inner cities, have some type of growth plan.  They control growth not to keep people out but to make sure utilities and resources are not overtaxed. Suburbs were originally designed to basically move the riff raff out of cities and warehouse them in more isolated areas, distant from the main power centers of a state or community.  They were cheaper and more accessible for the middle class, and often companies or businesses set up near suburbs so their employees had less expensive places to live. I apologize for the bad copy. I was unable to get it all with a clear font. From the piece:

This de facto annexation strategy had three parts: (1) use a kind of quota system to force “economic integration” on the suburbs, pushing urban residents outside of the city; (2) close down suburban growth by regulating development, restricting automobile use, and limiting highway growth and repair, thus forcing would-be suburbanites back to the city; (3) use state and federal laws to force suburbs to redistribute tax revenue to poorer cities in their greater metropolitan region. If you force urbanites into suburbs, force suburbanites back into cities, and redistribute suburban tax revenue, then presto! You have effectively abolished the suburbs.

Obama’s radical AFFH regulation puts every part of Obama’s radical AFFH regulation puts every part of progressives’ “abolish the suburbs” strategy into effect (as I explain in detail here). Once Biden starts to enforce AFFH the way Obama’s administration originally meant it to work, it will be as if America’s suburbs had been swallowed up by the cities they surround. They will lose control of their own zoning and development, they will be pressured into a kind of de facto regional-revenue redistribution, and they will even be forced to start building high-density low-income housing. The latter, of course, will require the elimination of single-family zoning. With that, the basic character of the suburbs will disappear. At the very moment when the pandemic has made people rethink the advantages of dense urban living, the choice of an alternative will be taken away.progressives’ “abolish the suburbs” strategy into effect (as I explain in detailnce Biden starts to enforce AFFH the way Obama’s administration originally meant it to work, it will be as if America’s suburbs had been swallowed up by the cities they surround. They will lose control of their own zoning and development, they will be pressured into a kind of de facto regional-revenue redistribution, and they will even be forced to start building high-density low-income housing. The latter, of course, will require the elimination of single-family zoning. With that, the basic character of the suburbs will disappear. At the very moment when the pandemic has made people rethink the advantages of dense urban living, the choice of an alternative will be taken away.

Obama’s plan

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz/

You're right.  The reader needed to click on the upper right hand corner to get to the plan.  Here's the link to the plan

https://joebiden.com/housing/

This is also by Stanley Kurtz, also in the National Review, from 2015.  It's part and parcel of the portion you copied into message 11.   He seems opposed to a plan to make housing available to more Americans and to strengthen and enlarge the middle class, the true strength of the country.

No he does not. If you read it carefully he is opposed to government take over of communities as everyone should be.  Cities should have local control over their money and expenditures and zoning. This doesn’t affect me so much as I’m not in the type of area it would affect unless they literally razed an entire city and started over.  I would be very worried if I owned a large parcel of land that could be carved up, leaving the homeowner with a small yard.  That is what they will be targeting, larger properties that can be taken over or rezoned so the excess acreage can be used to be to build housing projects.  It’s already happening in the states you admire.  Cities have been forced to build low cost housing in areas not equipped for it.  It not only changes the economic make up of the cities, it changes the crime rates.  In fact, when this first happened, the most liberal homeowners turned into overnight NIMBYs.  It’s one thing for people to say they are in favor of all of this, but another to have it next door.  I recently watched a large project that would have provided hundreds of low cost rental units torn to shreds by neighbors who said they were worried about traffic. Not crime, not of schools or services, traffic.  I learned about it from someone who lives in that city.  I do not, it’s not in my area.  “Traffic” was code word for “we are NIMBYs.”

Interestingly enough, there were some news items on this very subject Wednesday night.  Kurtz is passionately supporting segregation, just as Trump is.  Here's some news items for you to look at -- with links.

President Donald Trump is threatening to revoke a sweeping Obama-era fair housing rule, stepping up his administration’s efforts to gut anti-discrimination laws amid a national reckoning with race.

Trump cast the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule as a campaign issue with a thinly veiled warning to the “great Americans who live in the suburbs” that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would bring chaos to their neighborhoods.

“At the request of many great Americans who live in the Suburbs, and others, I am studying the AFFH housing regulation that is having a devastating impact on these once thriving Suburban areas,” Trump tweeted Tuesday night. “Corrupt Joe Biden wants to make them MUCH WORSE. Not fair to homeowners, I may END!”

The 2015 rule — which the Obama administration introduced to bolster enforcement of the landmark Fair Housing Act of 1968 [bolding mine --MD] — required local governments to track patterns of poverty and segregation with a checklist of 92 questions in order to gain access to federal housing funds.  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/01/trump-hud-fair-housing-rule-346996

The Act's been on the books for more than 50 years. 
An another in the same vein

President Donald Trump’s threat to revoke an Obama-era fair housing rule suggests he won’t hesitate to stoke racial tensions to play on suburban residents’ fears in the runup to the election this fall.

Trump’s threat to step up his administration’s efforts to gut anti-discrimination laws comes amid a national reckoning on race. The administration has already worked to weaken fair-housing rules on several fronts. In the last year alone, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has proposed rolling back two key Obama-era rules meant to crack down on housing segregation, including the 2015 rule Trump is now threatening to scrap entirely..  https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/07/02/house-passes-clean-ppp-extension-788953

And another

In his tweet, Trump essentially admitted that there’s a different motive: Eliminating the rule will reduce the pressure on local governments to provide space and opportunity for Black families in affluent white neighborhoods.

There's a lot to study, but it shows that Kurtz is defending segregation.

Because I live in a highly diverse area, I remember the beginning of white flight in the early to mid 60s.  I gave you a link to Biden's plan.  It certainly makes sense.

That is such nonsense, I am sorry, I can’t even believe anyone writes that garbage.  The underlying assumption is that without a law Black families are Incapable of earning enough money to live in suburban communities.  There is nothing more racist than that kind of thinking.  I don’t know what kind of segregation exists still in your state, but it’s not happening here.  Most communities have a good mix of races, based on people moving where they choose to live.  If your state is segregated, I feel sorry for you and everyone who chooses to live there.  Our communities all have their own personalities and racial blends.  Some are more heavily Asian, by choice.  The Hispanic families I know are extremely close, and choose to live in the cities where most of their families live.  If a few family members can’t afford a nicer community, they buy or rent nearby so they can actively participate in each other’s lives.  That is by choice.  Ironically a lot of white young adults can’t afford to live near their parents and are moving to cities they can afford, which are often what would be considered less nice areas.

Suburbs may be affluent, but most are not. Another ridiculous bias.

We have very different views of Trump's efforts to gut anti-discrimination laws and the consequences of those efforts.  You are really missing the point, so I hope you will excuse me if I don't take the time to refute your assertions.