With the help of the federal government, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are spending millions of dollars to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed homes and tear down blighted properties. Both cities have relied on a variety of programs designed to fix up buildings, revitalize neighborhoods and encourage responsible property ownership. The early results have been impressive, but some critics continue to question whether government should invest so many public dollars in private real estate. They contend that cities are doing too much land speculation that will leave government -- and taxpayers -- on the hook for properties they might not be able to sell.

Those concerns are overblown, and they overlook the important role city governments should play in maintaining healthy residential neighborhoods. Even with the new investment, Minneapolis and St. Paul have a relatively small stake in the overall real estate market, and the lion's share of foreclosed and other properties remain in private hands. In St. Paul, about 2,000 properties are vacant -- up from 370 in 2004. Yet of that total, the city currently controls only about 200.

And Minneapolis is only taking over land that is blighted, vacant or otherwise unattractive to private buyers. Instead of purchasing many properties outright, the city often works with banks to refer foreclosed homes to for-profit or nonprofit partners. In turn, those partners buy, fix up and sell properties based on standards set by the city.

Leaders in the core cities have smartly focused on communities hardest hit by foreclosure. High concentrations of foreclosures have had a devastating effect on neighborhoods in the Near North Side and Phillips neighborhoods in Minneapolis, and in the north end, Frogtown and parts of the East Side in St. Paul.

About 500 structures have been torn down in the two cities since 2006, including foreclosures and other buildings that had fallen irreversibly into disrepair. And while there were objections to razing some of the properties, a vacant lot is usually preferable to a vacant, blighted building. Empty structures attract vagrants, thieves, drug dealing and can be dangerous for children.

City involvement can help shape neighborhood redevelopment in important ways. Foreclosure-driven, fire-sale prices can attract irresponsible landlords and speculators that continue the cycle of dilapidated housing and blight. Local governments can assure that the properties they control live up to higher building and rehab standards.

The Minneapolis foreclosure recovery plan has become a national model while helping 400 homeowners avoid foreclosure. City partners have rehabbed and sold homes to more than 200 buyers, and forgivable loan programs have resulted in the purchase of more than 230 empty and foreclosed homes.

Unlike many private buyers, municipal leaders consider big picture issues. In addition to rehabbing a particular home, the city can encourage strategies that benefit entire neighborhoods and the city overall. In reclaiming foreclosed homes in Frogtown, for example, decisions can be made to keep properties affordable so that moderate-income families can afford to live there when the Central Corridor light-rail line is built down University Avenue.

No municipality should be a long-term, indefinite owner of private property. But local government is uniquely positioned to turn the foreclosure crisis into an opportunity to revitalize and strengthen the most challenged city neighborhoods.