[gnarledmaw]

A couple of us were having this conversation a couple of weeks ago. The government already tried this back in the 70s. They built whole neighborhoods of homes (alternating the same split level, ranch, and cape cod houses down the street) and moved in low income people. Their house payment was set at $75 dollars or whatever it was the agency determined they should be able to pay. They made the same claims that people would become more productive and have better lives if they owned a home.

Just as RC said, all the dopers and drunks just let the homes collapse and didnt make their payments. The houses were often badly vandalized by the residents. The program was a total failure and by the 80s many of those neighborhoods had none of the original inhabitants left and the homes were sold to middle class families looking for a cheap fixer upper. I spent a couple of years helping my dad remodel one at the same time every other family of new owners in that neighborhood was doing the same.

It might sound good but it doesnt work. A major part of the problem is the culture that these people bring with them. Substance abuse plagues these residents and anyone short on cash tends to fall back into old habits. This guy "used to" have a problem. He likely will in the near future too. Even worse are some of the ones that actually do kick the substances themselves, now theyre sober enough to run their own drug/theft/prostitution rings.

[beergarden]

” A major part of the problem is the culture that these people bring with them.”

Exactly. It’s an attitude/approach/culture problem. Who says you can kick a drug problem that easily? If the dude actually placed a “visitation/inspection” clause just like any apartment and they find crack stuff in the apartment, it could work. But I doubt it.

[Patriotic1]

Except that they are bringing in senior citizens and foster care kids (who have aged out). I think if the process is selective, there’s a better chance of success.