I strongly support basic shelter, nutrition, safety and medical care for all individuals who will not harm others or jeopardize others' right to the same. Our civilization is wealthy enough to manage that, even for "lazy" individuals; and it would be simpler to let a few "sponges" benefit rather than sustaining a massive bureaucracy to determine who "deserves" these basics and who does not.

I also strongly support some forms of incentive to have well-thought-out, cost-effective architecture - the exact opposite of what Piercy and Ruiz did with Capstone and are doing with the City Hall.

But "housing need" is not an ethical justification for degrading the livability of people's neighborhoods, which is what the "true believers" in Eugene claim is justified. Degrading established neighborhoods is also counter-productive and inequitable. Economically mobile households will simply move to an acceptable alternative, and less well-off will be stuck with less desirable neighborhoods.
 
Paul