Shows you how far "out of the loop" I am - so the *city* has bought, owns, maintains, and rents out housing?  Seems like a good idea, overall - they hold on to appreciating assets while giving housing opportunities to those who normally would not be able to afford living in the city.

But this begs many questions - Has anyone analyzed the expenses - is a disproportionate amount of money spent by the city to keep/maintain/upgrade these buildings - or is it all self sustaining?

Are city staff that should otherwise be working on projects that would benefit the entire city - and not just the residents of one building - being tasked with this work - or does the income strictly from rent at the unit go to hiring staff or outside management companies to maintain the buildings?

Who is responsible for setting and monitoring rent as compared to neighboring buildings?  When the city "can't afford" multiple other projects - is it just to the citizens to keep rents lower than a fair market value?