The article in question wasn't just about "here are possible solutions to two* civic problems", it was "here are these unorthodox, but potentially more effective solutions, but the paradox is that they are extremely politically unpalatable, they seem unfair to the general public". It seems silly to cite that as a "weakness" of the article, when it was part of the article's content, and the parallel with welfare reform was noted.

Here's a link to the actual article:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060213fa_fact

* Actually, now that I look at it again, it goes into three civic problems, though chronic homelesness is the primary focus.