Sorry, misspoke. I ment community housing. Owned and maintained by the community for anyone, like in Sweden. Did not mean the subsidised basic housing for the

Sorry, misspoke. I ment community housing. Owned and maintained by the community for anyone, like in Sweden. Did not mean the subsidised basic housing for the use of the most miserable to conserve their status, taking their money with market rates when they start to earn above low miserable level, prohibiting a raise in living standard or savings. Whenever you'd get a glance at breaking out of the 30k-40k kind of household income level you'd be hit with market rent which will push you right back to social housing. This serves more like an other kind of of inadequate social benefits, something to point at: 'see, we have social something!' while it's just conserving the situation for the poor, no real chance getting into a non-existent middle class. More like a life raft for those having no other choice than a community centric housing approach for the population. The 100,000 is both inadequate number - not enought because there are more who'd need it, so it is mandated on the private sector to build more - and also too high: showing how big the poor class is...