All I can see negative about it is
those that say it'd push poorer people off expensive streets. Well, given that they don't own the house anyway and it'd only be implemented when they move out for whatever reason, I can't see how that's any different to the way housing usually works.
( Kroney, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:17, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

really people should just be thankful that government steps to to rescue them from their own uselessness

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:22, Reply)

"oh no, we're not giving people who can't support themselves
free houses that are on the most expensive streets anymore! :("

Seems like a non-argument to me. Providing social housing is a good thing done by a responsible society. There is also a reponsibility to the tax payer to make sure those houses are as fiscally efficient as possible. That doesn't mean building a ghetto, but it does mean making sure we can house as many people in as many decent houses as possible.
( Kroney, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:26, Reply)

Building a ghetto is fiscally irresponsible as well.
Means you're paying not much money for something that'll never be worth much money. Much better to make decent homes that will still be desireable in the future.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:28, Reply)

i dunno it worked ok in Warsaw

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:32, Reply)

( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:37, Reply)

That's true and the fact that which are and aren't expensive streets changes so randomly.
You might within the lifetime of the building be able to sell that on again.
In fact it could be a great way for councils to profit from redevelopment. Build a street of cheap council houses, when there's a bit of spare cash, plant trees along the street, rename it an avenue, sell them off when they're free.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:26, Reply)