Loyola Law Professor Bill Quigley deserves a respectful nod for his efforts to help the poor in New Orleans. His fervor and outspokenness are heartfelt, which is commendable. However, his advocacy of New Orleans’ public housing developments is supported by arguments that by no means outweigh his opponents’; his side is, in short, not entirely convincing.

That’s not to say that we can decisively point to him and say he’s completely in the wrong. This debate has become a giant head-scratching mess because although each side wants to make the other into the villain, that approach isn’t moving anyone forward.

The public housing debate is met by passion on both sides, yet what makes this argument so perplexing is that both sides have valid points. This isn’t an easy fairy-tale story of a white knight fighting for justice against a wicked aggressor. This is a story of two well-intentioned groups fighting each other, while the real bad guy-the toxic environment of crumbling projects-stands on the sidelines and observes the melee.

One thing is certain: The projects must come down. They are a failed social experiment. Generations of families have grown up in these buildings, which were initially intended to be a temporary place where people could stay until they got back on their feet. Some people have argued that it would be criminal to tear down the projects because people have known it as home their entire lives.

That argument only proves the point of their opponents, who say the demolition is necessary to bring about change. They say New Orleans is mired in habit, which has allowed the projects to sit moldering for years and the people in them to slip through the system, staying in their “temporary” housing for decades.

If there’s any time to take on the bad guy and incite change, this is it. Post-Katrina, many of the housing units have remained shuttered. Many of the people who used to live there are still scattered in the Great New Orleans Diaspora. Now is the time when the fewest people will be displaced, so now is the time to act.

Whether the City Council is going about its decision making process with the utmost prudence is a legitimate debate, but to say outright that the projects should stay is a disservice to the poor, not an attack against them.

The greater issue at hand is how to teach people who are stuck in the rut of dependency how to break free from the cycle that has kept them from moving out of the projects. The projects are a tangible thing to fight over; the problems of creating a spirit of independence and the ambition toward a fulfilled life are nebulous, but unfortunately they’re also more important.