Should state housing tenants be financially liable for damage they have caused to the homes they rent?

A private sector renter has to post a bond to cover any repairs needed which they lose if they do not maintain the property.

Usually, there is a clause in the agreement they sign that they will allow regular inpections to be made while they are in residence.

Are state housing tenants also subject to regular inspections?

I have always felt public housing is immoral.

It is always those who won't put the effort into funding their own life who get the equivalent of winning the lottery by getting one.

You could not give these people the house they live in, as they know the rent they pay could never fund the maintenance costs, even if they had no other cost of owning.

Yes I believe everything, including the rent, bond etc should be the same as private rental, if any form of equity is to be involved.

God help our grand kids if we don't stop funding every drop kick in the land to a lifestyle the self supported can no longer afford.

I've never lived in public housing, however, I believe in any robust social democracy public housing is necessary....if you don't wish to have yourselves Sowetos, or as they are know in Brazil "favelos", in every city....shanty towns. Shanty towns are commonly attached to urban areas in countries not so fortunate as ours. They are what happens when countries can't afford public infrastructure like housing.

Do you know, Hasbeen, that when industrial society first took off and all the people were lured to the towns (and I use the word "town" loosely) they were piled in sometimes twenty families to a tenement The streets were strewn with rubbish and excrement - ie, there was no public infrastructure, and what private infrastructure there was, wasn't adequate. The upshot was that the whole set-up soon degenerated into a cesspit of disease and licentiousness. If you have a whole class of people living a hand to mouth existence in slums, pretty soon their behaviour and general habits start to match their circumstances.

...so, eventually all these things were sorted, and things got better, because it's imperative that any healthy society, especially one like ours which is a technologically advanced industrial model, should provide adequate shelter for its poorest.

Having said that, I see no reason why public tenants shouldn't be held responsible for reasonable maintenance of the house and environs, or any willful damage caused - that seems a no-brainer.

Poirot,
Public housing precincts are proportionally just as diseased and licentious as the tenements and squatter camps of old, it's just that their denizens now have access to free medical care, contraception, abortion and the rotgut gin has been replaced with benzodiazepine.
Remove the medical care and the population of "poor" would explode and their material conditions would putrify but mercifully they'd mostly be dead before they hit fifty.

Hasbeen you and I am bound to fight, those words as often is the case are inflaitory.
WW you as I did, may have watched the program that shows both smashed and empty houses and those waiting to get in one.
My answer without reserve is YES.
My stumbling thread about reforming that part of our economy that is Socialist, demands repayment.
Take it out of the dole or any Social security payments.
I support such housing, the one percent who destroy are not its only problem.
In my state CORRUPTION is rampart, key money/bribes to let folk in are riff.
Empty houses miss managed by public servants sit empty, both sides of politics are like a jelly wobbling on a plate.
Unsure if they want or do not want,public housing.
Many elderly and infirm, live quite ok in box like public housing.
Many social problems exist in housing areas, but too good quite neighbor hoods exist.
A balance is needed in the rental market.
Hasbeen , no fault of their own SOME very many more than you think,some end life on pensions and nothing else.
They have to confront rents of a basic minimum $250 a week, on the pension.
Do we want them out in the streets, or in caravan parks paying near that in any case.
Are the poor lessor humans?
Your words if taken as your real thoughts, answer with let the eat cake!

In London I lived in a house that was public housing sub-let by the beneficiary, who was living somewhere cheaper and pocketing the difference. I don't remember any inspectors coming round and I was there for at least 6 months.