I'm not a fan of governments subsidizing market housing, but I'm fine with it in this case due to its location. It's a special use case and as
@CBBarnett mentioned, if it weren't for subsidies these buildings wouldn't get converted. It's a one time cost to get housing into an area that would not likely ever get housing.
Unfortunately we've seen that the landlords are okay to sit on the properties even when they're empty. Some of the buildings have been empty for 7-8 years, and still no change from the landlords. Some day the buildings might get to a low enough value that the landlord finally dumps them for next to nothing, but that could be 20 or 30 years from now.