Even the New York Times can see, with a side-by-side comparison, that a housing project operated by private developers is better than one operated by a government agency. "Public-private partnerships, done properly, vigilantly overseen by city officials, at appropriate sites like Baychester, can work," the Times concedes, though that concession is bracketed by a lot of apologetic breast-beating. A side-by-side comparison of one government-operated project and another operated by "a cohort of private developers — Camber Property Group, MBD Community Housing Corporation and L+M Development Partners"—makes it clear: "Side by side, the two projects make a textbook before-and-after comparison, one derelict, the other refurbished."
Amazing how that works.
My preference would be to have the property fully sold (perhaps even to the tenants, a la Margaret Thatcher and the council flats), but short of that, private operation is at least a step above what even the Times describes as "derelict."