I agree...Public housing was used to keep poor black people confined to an area of town and at bay. It was the new segregation that occurred in the 1970s. Some public housing acts and reforms were made around that time because of this. They had a decision to make, either begin to provide black men with jobs so they can provide for their families which means they would eventually integrate into better homes where whites live or find a way to pacify the black community and keep them from being upwardly mobile. There is no return on investment on public housing for the black community. It is the same reason why the government and private companies can easily demolish public housing units and projects to gentrify for white elites and their hipster children. Because black people are NOT the owners, There is no generational wealth that is past down from living in a public housing unit. The government is now using this opportunity to move poor people out so they can create a tax revenue base that will fatten their pockets. On the side note, if public housing was not created many blacks would be living in American versions of shanty towns and favelas considering the last of economic opportunities we face as a people.
i made thread about the black dude that ran the public housing in NYC
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/simeon-golar-who-fought-for-public-housing-dies-at-84.138499/ this story is interesting because you can see exactly how it went down when black leaders got convinced/bamboozled into thinking that public housing and integration was the key to black prosperity
about shanty towns and favelas, i think you have to break down why shanty towns and favelas are bad, its the same reasons that public housing is bad, there is no property ownership, so the residents do not accumulate capital
i dont really knock shanty towns and favelas, even if its filled with poor people, if its organized properly using capitalism and the rule of law they can become engines of prosperity, but people have to be able to own where they live