> What's wrong with housing the poor in cheap isolated areas? The thrust of the article is that no one should really be living in those places. Living in an i

> What's wrong with housing the poor in cheap isolated areas? The thrust of the article is that no one should really be living in those places. Living in an isolated area is fine if you have access to transportation. The implication of the article is that there isn't adequate public transportation and the people don't have cars. Basically, if you house someone in a place that sets them up for failure, how grateful can you really expect them to be? > If they're not working, they don't need to be occupying more valuable locations near town. The lady in the article said she couldn't work because she spent half her day getting her kids to / from school. That is different from being unwilling to work. Maybe the residents are unwilling to work, but maybe it's a matter of them being too far away from jobs to realistically get one. > Where's the exploitation? The implication of the article is that the exploitation is by the property developers who converted the office space into something that qualified for government housing money, but wasn't really suitable for people to live in.