Remember, the proposal here is not to 'take care of'. It is to eminent domain, condemn, and tear down the houses and other buildings.
Therefore, it is not perpetual government largesse, which would be closer to the federal government subsidized flood insurance program, which when I researched it often forced flood victims to rebuild in the exact same spot as before, without so much as lifting the replacement something like a foot above the last flood level.
The issue here night be if, say, I got wind of the program, found a cheap place, buying it from a foreclosure sale, counting on it being part of the buyout to get myself a better property.
Maybe I do some absolute minimum cost 'upgrades' to increase the footage and feature count.
Still, this could be addressed in various ways, like requiring residency(actually living there), or prorating depending on time owned. Like less than 1 year is the lower of purchase price or replacement cost, 10 years is replacement.

Only if you count middle class retirees and such as rich. There are probably a few rich people, but not 1200.

Personally, so they have incentive to actually move, I'd go with replacement. IE if you have a 1500 sqft 3 bed 2 bath place, they pay the median for a habitable 1500 sqft 3 bed 2 bath. Without any modifiers for 'waterfront' or such.
Concentrate on the cheaper properties first, the multimillionaire mansions can fend for themselves.

That might actually be better. Remember, this was testing new technology, failures are to be expected. Russia would actually be suspicious of it being faked if it goes perfectly, because that is what they'd do.
Now the question is how fast things can be fixed. Many of the failures weren't actually critical, fixable with minor revisions.

In this case, it's along the lines of "Those who wish for peace; prepare for war".

By conducting public testing like this, it demonstrates that we have the capacity, that we are not slacking off, and this reduces the chances of us needing to use said capacity.

Same idea behind deploying with NBC protective gear and smallpox vaccines - if anybody gets any ideas about using that stuff, well, we're nominally ready for them, reducing the benefit of even trying.

Everything I've seen says that the DoD would really prefer our opponents don't open that particular can of worms.

It could be considered both not an extensive problem - in that most purchasers could do it, and not an expensive problem - $800-1k, with deeper discounts available for those able to do the work themselves.
I've read of people doing without the level 2 charger, and just charging using either a 110V outlet (cripple charging) if they average less than ~30 miles/day, using an extension cord from the dryer outlet, and more.

Oddly enough, I know people who have installed their own pumps. That said, a gasoline pump and tank is far more expensive and involved than a car charger.
  $4k for a charger would be very unusual, $800 is closer to the median. Just include it as part of the purchase price of the EV.

It's because taxi drivers are basically the biggest expense line in a taxi. Even truck drivers are up there. Get rid of the driver, and one can either profit much more from the ride or drop the price some and get a lot more customers.
But before that you need a self driving car.

Good news on that front though - a self driving car might be worth like $5k extra to a personal car buyer (a person who cannot legally drive might value it more), but for a taxi company? $30k/year would still save them oodles of money, potentially.

I'm going to note that I said "trying to be communist" not "actually communist", precisely because of the extent of no-true scotsman claims that come up whenever somebody claims a country to be communist.
At the level of communism people attempt to use to say countries weren't communist, even Karl Marx wasn't communist.

But in acknowledgement of that, "trying to be communist" covers things like them actually attempting to follow the paths laid out in the book to reach it. Which both China and the USSR attempted, at least until they discovered that it ultimately flawed in many critical ways.

You do realize that a simile only needs to be similar, right? Gates eventually mentioned that the 640k was only intended for that specific market at that specific time.
But that only makes the comparison more apt. As technologies change, as the economy develops, things change.
Today, I'd estimate that 60% of people could go EV without problem. 80% if we only consider whether a given car could be replaced with an EV without extensive issue.
Note: I don't consider installing a level 2 charger in a house an extensive issue.

I see that as a '640k should be enough for anyone' type statement, and it was made by somebody in charge of Toyota, one of the biggest hydrogen car proponents and developers.

Advances in battery tech approaching that of transistors back in the day while hydrogen tech has relatively languished, has pushed hydrogen into being even less realistic, while rewriting the economics of EVs completely.

Now, that 100% hybrids rather that 90% ICE and 10% EV would save more gasoline on less battery is true.
We could go for having basically 90% of or vehicles being hybrid before reaching 20% EV. Have the idea be that people buy a hybrid today, replace it with a PHEV, then go EV.

It is like having democratic in a country's name. Generally tracks with not actually being that. At this point dropping the communism would be strange because everybody grew up with it named that, but only the oldest actually remember it trying to be communist.
Today, China is rated as being easier to start a business in than the USA, and that is a problem.

The CO2 should have to escape through whatever opening is created, and ripstop is pretty standard for this sort of thing, keeping openings small. A venting liquid CO2 tank would be limited by evaporation.
The danger zone would depend on the size of the hole, but like old CO2 fire extinguishers, CO2 tends to disburse fast, and the lethal range for it is drastically higher than things like carbon monoxide, ammonia, and such.
Plus, think of the future! An EV would operate just fine, and a couple minutes would get you out of danger.

It is a closed loop system. Smallish tanks for the liquid co2, great big football field or larger dome for gaseous CO2. Website does not have dimensions, I'd guess the dome varies in size based on total energy desired.
As such, it is like worrying about the inner loop water in a nuclear reactor. Since you theoretically only need that initial charge, it rounds to zero per unit of energy over time.

Reading the site page, it is closed cycle. The big gas dome holds more or less atmosphere temperature and pressure CO2. There are one or more tanks holding relatively non-cryogenic liquid CO2.
When there is excess power, pumps liquify CO2 into the tanks. When power is demanded, evaporating CO2 goes through a turbine to produce power, then into the dome.
Water is used, most likely to cool the freshly compressed CO2, and warm expanded CO2 after the turbine.