Mr. Rowe's comments concerning the public housing "blight" is interesting and in my opinion very myopic. His plan to solve the social issues that brought about public housing and the associated "cycle of social dysfunction" is nothing more than a band-aid, if that.

Tearing down public housing and then attempting to "integrate its dependents into mixed-income communities" in order to address the socio-economic problems is not the answer. Mr. Rowe is correct in suggesting that it is important to create "partnerships in the community" to develop or expand current programs to help people become more self-sufficient. However, to start by vouchering out current public housing tenants through the Section 8 program before really addressing the underlying problems is simply putting the cart before the horse. Why not revamp existing public housing using the tenants as partners, in many ways like a Boot Strap program or a model of Habitat for Humanity? Shouldn't we develop the community and allow the tenants to take part in the development, rather than just relocating them and the underlying socio-economic problems?

I do wonder if the use of a program to move public housing tenants into "mixed-income communities" would have been suggested during the real-estate boom here in the valley when houses were in short supply?

Is the program Mr. Rowe outlines social reengineering or gentrification? When he states "once we get rid of the housing, we can take that land and put something on the table that would attract folks with discretionary income, with jobs and paychecks". This is very simply gentrification. His program will do nothing to improve or help the displaced public housing tenants. This needs to be looked at very closely!

Mr. Rowe's comments concerning the public housing "blight" is interesting and in my opinion very myopic. His plan to solve the social issues that brought about public housing and the associated "cycle of social dysfunction" is nothing more than a band-aid, if that.

Tearing down public housing and then attempting to "integrate its dependents into mixed-income communities" in order to address the socio-economic problems is not the answer. Mr. Rowe is correct in suggesting that it is important to create "partnerships in the community" to develop or expand current programs to help people become more self-sufficient. However, to start by vouchering out current public housing tenants through the Section 8 program before really addressing the underlying problems is simply putting the cart before the horse. Why not revamp existing public housing using the tenants as partners, in many ways like a Boot Strap program or a model of Habitat for Humanity? Shouldn't we develop the community and allow the tenants to take part in the development, rather than just relocating them and the underlying socio-economic problems?

I do wonder if the use of a program to move public housing tenants into "mixed-income communities" would have been suggested during the real-estate boom here in the valley when houses were in short supply?

Is the program Mr. Rowe outlines social reengineering or gentrification? When he states "once we get rid of the housing, we can take that land and put something on the table that would attract folks with discretionary income, with jobs and paychecks". This is very simply gentrification. His program will do nothing to improve or help the displaced public housing tenants. This needs to be looked at very closely!