We’re debating the location, density and design of Galveston’s public housing, as if its construction or removal will make all the difference.

But the larger question is this: How do we eliminate intergenerational poverty on the island? The solution goes beyond simply building more or less public housing.

The Fair Housing Act is the law of the land, and we must respect it, but why stop there? We’re ultimately making choices about human beings, especially our youngest.

The answer isn’t idealistically to expect other cities to welcome our poor, though some have moved on anyway; nor is it just to build more public housing, though replacing some affordable, decent housing is a step.

Rather, the answer is to create a four-way plan for jobs, education, affordable housing and quality of life improvements that you’d expect from any competent, American city management. So, where do we start?

First, our elected city council, rather than Galveston Housing Authority, must establish itself as the policy body to tackle poverty by creating not only a comprehensive affordable housing policy, but also by supporting cradle-to-college educational opportunities, jobs and job training, health and wellness programs, transportation access, recreational opportunities and commercial investment.

When you consider this municipal assignment list, it becomes clear our condition isn’t the authority’s problem alone. So, if we’ve failed before, let’s not blame the authority for all our ills. Poverty in Galveston is primarily the council’s and manager’s challenge to confront. the authority must partner, not lead. the authority surely understands it works for the city, not the other way around.

Next, the council should identify communities where locally driven plans have changed lives, and let’s be the next example of that success. Intergenerational poverty isn’t unique to Galveston; Savannah, Norfolk and Alexandria and others have addressed poverty successfully, and we need their guidance and advice now.

The council should instruct the city manager to determine what made the difference in those urban environments. Avoid lengthy studies and “blue ribbon” committees; I’m talking about a few phone calls — manager to manager — followed by appropriate action items on the next council agenda.

Specifically, our next mayor and council must instruct the city manager to kill blight in its tracks: Clean the litter, raze hopelessly rotted buildings and repair our streets, lights and signs. If the city’s sidewalks, curbs and buildings aren’t in good shape, how can we expect private landowners to police their property?

This requires private and public funding for programs to fix our island; embracing growth over stagnation to build our tax base; choosing high quality of life rather than the bare minimum.

There are 24 regular council meetings a year; these tasks should be the focus of each meeting. Council should review the city manager’s performance twice a year to guarantee results, and voters will hold the council accountable at the polls.

Better school ratings, more jobs, increased retail sales and a growing population are objective measures of whether our council and city manager are succeeding.

Let’s keep our eye on them, rather than blame the authority for all our problems. To be clear, in order for this new direction to succeed, the authority finally will have to meet the highest national standards, too. A positive and demanding board of commissioners — appointed by the next mayor — will ensure that happens.