Local communities often suffer when residents have too small a stake in their homes — a point underscored by recent rashes of foreclosures and abandonments, and implicated by longstanding questions about the effects on communities of renters and owner-occupants, respectively. However, homeowners with too great a financial stake in their homes can also cause difficulties for local governance by acting as risk-averse NIMBYs. Local governments should have a strong interest in helping members of their communities move away from problematic forms of stakeholding and toward more desirable intermediate positions.
The financial engineering used to address the problem is doubtful in my humble opinion (basically various forms of housing derivatives sponsored by local governments), but the articulation of the problem is a good one.
One reason to support the school choice movement is that it decouples two very big household investments from each other: the investment in your home, and the investment in your child's education. If one's address does not dictate the place where your child goes to school (particularly in urban areas where it is feasible to provide many choices within a reasonable distance) then it is far easier for people with children much more room for flexibility in buying homes and also greatly reduces the stakes people have in trying to regulate who lives in their neighborhood as a way of regulating the peers that their children will have in school.
If education and a home investment were decoupled, the real estate market might invest in currently low income neighborhoods much more readily.