There is the nub of the problem. I don't want Section 8 tenants next to me either, but neither do I think concentrating and quarantining the poor is a good policy. One of the things we should surely have learned by now is that highly concentrated poverty compounds problems by creating neighborhood blight and undergirding a culture of poverty that normalizes dysfunction.
A "good side" and "bad side" of town are nothing new, but prior to the automobile, cities were much more compact. Neighborhoods tended to be more mixed economically, and most people of necessity lived close to jobs. The rural poor might have been quite isolated, but in the cities, even the very worst neighborhoods were within walking distance of jobs, which is why poor rural people flocked to the cities in search of opportunity.
The automobile created the problem of the left-behinds, which started the process of concentrating and isolating the poor. Then came the era of the projects. Even the liberals will now admit that big housing projects were unwise; if it were up to me, I would dig up LBJ and bury his remains in the rubble of Cabrini Green. We are now trying to recover more flexible housing options for the poor, but good luck finding a neighborhood that will accept scattered site housing without a fight.
I don't see an easy solution. As a thought experiment, I sometimes suggest that we revert to a pure free market, libertarian model. This means getting rid of occupancy and zoning rules. Suburbanites would have to accept group houses, rooming houses, and families doubling and tripling up on their quiet cul de sacs. And we would have to let developers build multi-family units in areas that would prefer to zone them out. Since I live in an historic district that would be rapidly destroyed if we allowed developers to do whatever the market demanded, I do not actually support this approach, but I do challenge suburbanites who hide behind exclusionary zoning and expect other people's neighborhoods to become the dumping grounds for the poor.
Every community is different and solutions are highly site specific. That is one reason why a big federal sledgehammer is not a very good idea. But I do think that people with humble jobs should be able to live reasonably close to their work. This is a reasonable planning and zoning objective. If that means Malibu has to find room somewhere for apartments for the gardeners, housekeepers, cooks, and store clerks -- not to mention the schoolteachers, policemen, and med techs who work in the hospital -- so be it.
A rule of thumb I heard while working in Colorado, many moons ago: "Those who work in Aspen don't live there."
People with humble jobs did once live close to their work. It was called, depending on setting, 'the servants' quarters' (urban), the 'bunkhouse', (farm/ranch) etc.
In the event people have to travel long distances to work some place, that should be factored into their compensation. It was the compensation factor (mileage, expenses), among other considerations which led to oil companies making provisions for living quarters for necessary third party service providers on drill sites onshore (offshore living quarters were a given because of access).
More rules (planning and zoning) will only complicate what should be a market driven factor.