> Social housing avoids this hypocrisy, since the "owner" is not a person (or person-surrogate, like a corporation).

Like the housing projects in the inner cities?

> Like the housing projects in the inner cities?

The problem with US housing projects isn’t that they are social housing but that they are deliberate concentration of the poor (and therefore also marginalized, as those are correlated), with the same consequences that always has, whether or not it involves social housing.

Based on my (very limited) understanding of inner city housing projects in the USA, then yes.

AFAIK those planning such projects did not themselves live in social housing (unlike, say, many soviet officials), hence there's still an element of hypocrisy there (note that I never claimed otherwise; I specifically chose the word "this" in the sentence you've quoted. I'll also re-re-state that I've not made any argument for or against home ownership or renting)

The problem is, the housing projects ended up being a major contributor to gangs in the cities. Growing up, "the projects" was a common euphemism for gang-infested ghettos, even though that likely was only true for a small portion of the projects.

See here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...

Yes, there are pros and cons; hence why I haven't argued for or against any approach to housing (although I have been arguing against the hypocricy of someone advocating for an approach that they don't themselves follow, like non-renting landlords having renters)