The problem with scattered site housing, of course, is that many more neighborhoods have to be asked to take a share. That causes friction. That is understandable but it is still no reason for wealthy communities to be exempted.
At this point, we get into the site specific issues. Are there jobs in the area for the folks Habitat wants to move in? One of the benchmarks for housing decisions is that the people who work in service jobs in a community ought to be able to live in reasonable proximity. Ideally one should be able to live without a car. If the Habitat houses in this story are within reasonable range of a shopping/entertainment district or some other job concentration where these folks might find work, it might be a good location.
As an aside, I don't know what Habitat's track record is, but I have the notion that they don't cater to out-and-out bums. They do some screening and expect people to be working.
Given what I've seen in government-funded low income housing, I think that it generally should be abolished. It's nothing but government-sanctioned freeloading by the majority of the inhabitants.
You are correct in that. They already must be employed, have a good credit history (paying bills and utilities on time) and must be able to demonstrate their ability to pay the mortgage off. In addition, they have to agree to put in so many hours - typically 300-500 - of sweat equity in their own home.
Maybe it’s just in this area but I’ve seen some of the HFH homes around here and I’d rather have some of them as neighbors than the white-trash renters that lived next door to me for several years!