Yes, it's morally acceptable for the government to offer subsidized, best effort public services as long as it's not deceiving and knowingly putting people in h

Yes, it's morally acceptable for the government to offer subsidized, best effort public services as long as it's not deceiving and knowingly putting people in harm's way. I'm thinking of something like "here's a house, it has toxic paint, but it can be fixed; do you want to live here and accept responsibility to fix the issue and any other, in return for a long term, predictable and low rent?". The corruption here is of course morally reprehensible, but what I'm getting at is that the jobs of those involved shouldn't have existed, the conflict of interest shouldn't have existed between providing public aid and then being on the hook to get that aid to standards. It creates a massive perverse incentive for all those involved to pass the responsibility around until it all explodes in litigation, corruption and poisoned kids. The lawyer fees alone on this one will prevent quite a few kids from getting a house, trapping them into a life of low academic achievement and no opportunity. Wouldn't it all be more effective if a best effort would be provided as such, and for example, allow elder people to live in the house with toxic paint, fully knowing that they are not to eat paint chips and taking responsibility for their actions? The problem I have is with the chronic dis-empowerment against poor people under the guise of helping them.