🚀 go-pugleaf

Eternal Nay-sayer  <no@spam.for.me> wrote:
> Nobody is contesting that the DC government (currently overseen by federal
> appointees) is working to reduce the amount of public housing in DC,
> focusing mainly on "projects". Why do they want to eliminate the
> projects? Because they're a nightmare from a law enforcement
> standpoint, because they get damaged and/or destroyed by vandals 
> on a regular basis, and because (and this is probably the single most
> important reason...) they are not maintained by the residents.

It might be expensive in the short term, but how about keeping the same
amount of public housing, but scattering it in single units throughout the
city? In the Netherlands they've been trying to locate public housing in the
wealthiest areas, on the theory that this will bring people together in the
schools and the neighborhoods and lead to less of a dueling-fortresses
mentality.

I don't think that public housing should be eliminated, because people need
a place to live. Whether it's because they're disabled or overburdened or
just down on their luck, everyone deserves a roof over their heads.

I do think that the way it is implemented now - concentrating large numbers
of unhappy people into miserable settings - is not doing anyone a whole lot
of good.

miguel
-- 
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu