The gist of my counterargument is that I believe letting people own their housing would do better for them than sticking them in housing that they are specifically never allowed to own.

Then you bring up something about people choosing to live in a suburb for 30+ years as opposed to living in urban centers, as if that make any sense.

Do you genuinely think a working class family would rather own a generic two three bedroom home for 30+ years and be alienated from being apart of a wider community rather than living in a dense housing development where their kids can go to school, libraries, art galleries, etc. in their own building?..

Who are you responding to here? Because it certainly isn't me. I never advocated for anything of the sort. I asked why do we not give whatever property we're talking about to the residents instead of just letting them live there?

And of course home ownership isn't the most efficient path to building wealth, and of course there are many other paths. The tricky part is getting your tenants to use their excess income to invest. I suspect if they can't afford a home then they probably don't have excess income.

Good luck with the Angry part of AngryJourno.