Isn't the whole idea of UBI that it's subsidizing the lack of good jobs for people who for one reason or another can't land decent jobs? I don't see why someone who isn't being overly productive also needs to live in a location where one could use more productive people.

In other words if a mill worker's site shutdown and this person now depends solely on UBI I don't see why they should feel like they should afford some place in the closest big city if they don't get a job since their active addition to productivity is nil. If they get a job then they may or may not afford a place in that city. Still, it's not "owed" anyone.

> plan to also (somehow) massively increase the opportunities available in such places.

The incentive itself does this. First, there's the "opportunity" of living on the UBI - not a great option but more than there was before. Second, there's the opportunity of meeting the needs of the other people moving to such places, as well as those who lived there before (with their increased ability to pay).

And this leaves aside the fact that an increasing number of opportunities are not inherently tied to location.