7 ms·

We need to reframe the conversation on public and low cost housing. It's not about providing homes for only the deserving or the hardworking. The tough reality

We need to reframe the conversation on public and low cost housing. It's not about providing homes for only the deserving or the hardworking. The tough reality is that a lot of people on the street right now are happy enough living on the street. Demanding that you only give housing to people who can make it through a treatment program or find gainful employment means most of them are still going to be on the street. Even if you are only completely motivated by selfish desires, we want these people off the street for our benefit. It make cities nicer and America safer. Yes, these places are going to be drug infested slums. But it's still a good idea and I want my tax dollars to go towards it. And if we can add in some market-based options and give down-and-out humans the option of self-selecting to nicer facilities and working their way up to something better in life, all the better.

mrtesthah 1y ago
This analysis ignores the fact that homelessness itself is by and large the primary cause of mental health issues and drug addiction. It only takes a few missed paychecks before most people would end up on the street.
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - gherkinnn 1y ago
    Depends on the country and its support systems. But there are plenty of stories of rapid decline, even in well run countries. A bad divorce followed by some bad decisions and suddenly you realise you have nowhere else to go but the streets.
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      Yes, it could be the case. But it isn't for most, which was the assertion.
  - devonkim 1y ago
    When I talked to people in shelters before that was literally the top reason they were there. Oftentimes it starts from car trouble or a health episode causing loss of income. Without friends or family that can take them in they go to a shelter if they can (those with pets oftentimes go directly to the streets or their cars). Many are able to find employment again soon but many don’t and a downward spiral begins quickly. Somewhere around 30-40% of Americans cannot afford an emergency $1000 expense and it’s probably only going to go higher.
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      > Somewhere around 30-40% of Americans cannot afford an emergency $1000 expense. This oft-reported statistic is wrong. It's based on a survey that simply concluded that they wouldn't necessarily pull that amount from savings to meet an emergency expense. That doesn't mean they can't afford it or don't have more savings than that.
      - mythrwy 1y ago
        There are a lot of people right on the line though. May not be 40%, but it's a lot of people.
      - keeda 1y ago
        This seems to be the report and the specific section of interest: https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/emergency-savings-report/#americans-would-pay-for-an-emergency-from-their-savings https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/emergency-savings-r... You're right that the question they used is a bit vague, but there is a ton of other data in there that points to affordability as the main cause e.g. "Nearly a quarter of Americans have no emergency savings" and: "Sixty percent of Americans are uncomfortable with their level of emergency savings — 31 percent are very uncomfortable, and 29 percent are somewhat uncomfortable."
        seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        It is the social sciences, they can find data for any viewpoint they want to push.
  - abeppu 1y ago
    ~60% of Americans can't handle a surprise expense of $1k. "A few" missed paychecks is generally going to be more than a $1k disruption. My understanding is lots of places have relatively little protections for tenants. Once you're behind on your rent, how are people in this position going to catch up? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saving-money-emergency-expenses-2025/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saving-money-emergency-expenses...
  - Henchman21 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - at-fates-hands 1y ago
      >> There is no support system in this nation. WHAT? The US Federal Government spends over $3 TRILLION on social services. US states collectively spend around $1 TRILLION on social services. This is what's available just in my state: - temporary housing - free drug treatment programs - free addiction services - free food at hundreds of food shelves that also offer other amenities. - free public transportation - free and low cost job training - free and low cost pharmaceuticals and medicine I've never been homeless, because in several instances, I've actually used social services to survive and get back on my feet because that's why they're there. People complaining there is no support system are either willfully ignorant these programs even exist, or are just too lazy to take advantage of them. And I don't remember ANYBODY in ANY of the non-profit, state funded or state run offices asking me about my race or sexuality before they offered to help me. I honestly don't know what you're on about man, but saying there is no support system is pretty crazy to hear someone say.
      - keeda 1y ago
        Maybe the dissonance could be explained by being in different states? I can totally imagine social workers in some localities imposing their personal or religious beliefs on people needing help...
      - everdrive 1y ago
        Quite candidly for a lot of people whether or not there's enough "support" is just a matter of looking at outcomes. Are outcomes bad? Then (to some people) there is self-evidently not enough support.
      - tomhow 1y ago
        > WHAT? Please don't use uppercase for emphasis or be inflammatory in your commenting style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - thewebguyd 1y ago
    > I very much doubt this is the case. The "one missed paycheck away" is cited a lot, but it's not entirely false, if a bit of a hyperbole. The majority of Americans (recent estimates I believe are around 60%) have no savings, and live paycheck to paycheck. So while not exactly "one missed paycheck away" it's pretty close. More accurate would be to say "Most Americans are one crisis away..." Median weekly earnings for full-time workers in the US was $1,196 in Q2 - so, half of Americans make even less than that (~4,700/month). That's not a lot, and in a lot of areas of the country, that doesn't leave much room to save much of anything, especially if you have kids and need childcare. Going off the BLS consumer expenditure survey from 2023 (most recent one I could find), average spent on housing was $25k/year or 2119/month, almost half the median monthly earnings. Just housing. Factor in food, transportation, healthcare, utilities and it's not hard to see how people can, and are, struggling, and are effectively one mishap from falling too far behind to catch up.
    - legitster 1y ago
      Although Median household income in the US is the more relevant figure, especially for things like housing costs, and that's at ~80k. While most Americans don't have "emergency savings" (heck, I don't), most of the credible studies more realistically peg it as 25% of American adults or 1 in 4.
      - thewebguyd 1y ago
        Yeah fair enough, household income paints a better picture. Even so, $80k household isn't a pretty picture with today's housing and food costs except for the most LCoL areas, and in those the income is going to be considerably lower. To afford the US today, we need to be closer to $80k+ individually rather than for the whole household.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    The median American has $5400 in savings. It varies, but people who don’t have a good support network can fall off the rails quickly, depending on there you live. Florida unemployment pays $32-275/week. This is why you see so many homeless veterans. They often end up geographically separated from family and see relationships weaken due to time and distance. Whenever someone says “mental health” as a causative factor in a social problem, that’s saying “don’t know, wont fix”
- legitster 1y ago
  I'm not sure if I am ignoring it? There should be a housing option of last resort for people, full stop. The cause and effect between mental health and housing should be irrelevant when we solve for housing.
watwut 1y ago
> The tough reality is that a lot of people on the street right now are happy enough living on the street. Are they? Happy enough for what, exactly?
- danaris 1y ago
  "Happy enough" not to be willing to give up their autonomy and jump through a whole bunch of bullshit hoops to get housing. "Happy enough" that housing that excludes queer people, men (or people who look like men), people who need to not have their names be public information because they're hiding from abusive prior partners/parents, pets, people who are currently addicted to drugs (and thus cannot realistically never have drugs around), or any of a host of other restrictions, will not be something they consider an option. (Note that these restrictions are a) from separate sources, not all on the same thing, and b) things I've heard about in the context of shelters, rather than low-income housing; however, it would not surprise me in the least if similar restrictions were placed on various programs to help house the homeless.)
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    Also if you have work that doesn't line up exactly with the shelters opening or close, or you want to not be abused or assaulted at the shelter, or... There are cases where the street is safer or has more autonomy, like you say. Solutions need to offer similar things, so privacy, the ability to indulge in some little pleasures, to come and go at your own schedule are basic table stakes.
    - danaris 1y ago
      Right. A housing unit that lets you stay there indefinitely, for free, in an apartment that you can have to yourself—but doesn't allow alcohol, or is sex-segregated, or where you're mandated to come out and work for a specified period every day, or even that gets regularly searched for drug paraphernalia, is not going to work for a lot of people. Basically, housing for people like this needs to have, if anything, fewer restrictions on its use than housing for the general public. Give them the space to fuck up and to heal at their own pace, and not have to worry that those very normal kinds of problems will leave them worse off than before (eg, because if you're kicked out, your stuff gets confiscated—or even just because with these projects in place, there's less of a community of homeless people to support each other for those who still don't "fit").
bji9jhff 1y ago
Why are you making this a us vs them situation? They are citizens as much as you are and they inhabit their city like you are.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Except they shit on the sidewalk, piss on the shop steps, beg for food and cigarettes and get belligerent when turned away. If a vagabond or drug user can keep their habit from interfering with my safety and health, they are more welcome to do as they please.
  - vkou 1y ago
    If you'd like to let them shit in your bathroom, or fund public bathrooms, you can be part of the solution. > their habit from interfering with my safety and health Needing to shit isn't a habit. If you weren't aware, its a basic life function, like eating and breathing. Its telling that you're piggybacking that on to your complaints about drugs (and also ignoring the untreated/poorly treated mental illness and straight up poverty legs of the homeless tripod).
    - abeppu 1y ago
      I think the sad part is I think most people would be ok funding more public bathrooms if we had confidence that they would be used only as bathrooms ... but in the places that need them the most, people have the expectation that they will be used for other purposes.
      - vkou 1y ago
        That same standard isn't applied to most other public services. Nobody says: "Well, I'd stand behind funding public roads, but I won't since people don't follow traffic laws on them."
        abeppu 1y ago
pcrh 1y ago
> a lot of people on the street right now are happy enough living on the street. This must be one of the most brain-dead things I've read on this site. It's "not even wrong".
Spooky23 1y ago
The issue with SROs is nobody likes being near them and the crime and drug use they attract. My guess is as the asset bubbles pop, the marginal 70s-90s apartment complexes and second ring suburbs will be the new slums. People aren’t going to be able to afford cars as policy changes accelerate cost increases and wages continue to erode. City and near suburbs will be more attractive and expensive. You already see this happening in larger metro areas to some extent.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  If the bubbles pop that hard the state may ease up (reduce .gov imposed costs) rather than let those residents go from tax paying profit centers to assistance qualifying cost centers.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    Slumlords make alot of money and pay alot of taxes.
gwbas1c 1y ago
> Yes, these places are going to be drug infested slums. But it's still a good idea and I want my tax dollars to go towards it. From reading the article: 1: I got the impression a lot of these places weren't drug infested slums. 2: I got the impression that young, independent middle-class people could live in the nicer ones and save money. (Which they could use when they were ready to buy a home, start a family, ect.)
- legitster 1y ago
  I was being hyperbolic. I don't think all SROs would be "slums". But if we did provide housing for all 500,000+ homeless people in the US we shouldn't be surprised when some do become slums. SROs of yore came in all types, but one of the most notorious were flophouses, like the infamous "chicken-wire hotels".
  - gwbas1c 1y ago
    > But if we did provide housing for all 500,000+ homeless people in the US we shouldn't be surprised when some do become slums. That's what happens in a free society. We can't force people to be responsible adults when they don't want to. (But we can, and should, contain any mess they create, which I think you and I agree about the bigger details.)
seanmcdirmid 1y ago
It just isn't feasible. * No one wants to live next to low barrier housing (for drug addicts, that don't require drug treatment or other social programs), not just the most generous people who like you think these people should be helped, but even other homeless people! They will try their luck outside because you just put them in with a drug addict crazier than they are. * If your city starts handing out free housing to all of its homeless, it will just attract more people in need of that housing, to the point that you started out with 50K on the street, housed 50K, and now you have 100K on the street! This is a problem with local solutions at least: the better you treat the problem, the worse the problem will get. Local resources quickly get exhausted with no visible progress made (and worse: things are worse than when you started!), even if you are technically making the country a better place. SROs and rooming houses of the past...still had standards, they would kick out people who were causing problems. The only reason it seemed better is that enough people were afraid of losing the little housing they had to keep their problems/addictions in check enough to keep it. It was just crappy enough that no one wanted to be there who could do better, having a bunch of SROs didn't necessarily make your city a destination.
- Yizahi 1y ago
  No one wants to like in the bad districts, yes. But people will happily buy apartments in such places if they are significantly cheaper than the median (I mean not like twice or thrice cheaper, but even 10-25% cheaper). Case in point - people often do check that narks don't shoot drugs in their potential new building, but still all apartments would be sold out eventually. People don't like living under airport glide path, but still all apartments and houses under it are sold like hot cakes. I had viewed a new low rise complex last year near city highway (unshielded), railway, metal recycling shop and a construction site, and only a big mall nearby as a benefit. It's almost fully sold out now. In my previous city some company had built a three building low economy complex right near the railway in the middle of the former warehouse district, with bysmal parking and connection options too, it's also sold out. tl;dr low housing price (in a region with jobs of course) beats ANY negative factor. At least until it's not literally slums, and possibly not even then.
  - 1y ago

mrtesthah 1y ago

This analysis ignores the fact that homelessness itself is by and large the primary cause of mental health issues and drug addiction. It only takes a few missed paychecks before most people would end up on the street.

baggy_trough 1y ago
[flagged]
- gherkinnn 1y ago
  Depends on the country and its support systems. But there are plenty of stories of rapid decline, even in well run countries. A bad divorce followed by some bad decisions and suddenly you realise you have nowhere else to go but the streets.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    Yes, it could be the case. But it isn't for most, which was the assertion.
- devonkim 1y ago
  When I talked to people in shelters before that was literally the top reason they were there. Oftentimes it starts from car trouble or a health episode causing loss of income. Without friends or family that can take them in they go to a shelter if they can (those with pets oftentimes go directly to the streets or their cars). Many are able to find employment again soon but many don’t and a downward spiral begins quickly. Somewhere around 30-40% of Americans cannot afford an emergency $1000 expense and it’s probably only going to go higher.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    > Somewhere around 30-40% of Americans cannot afford an emergency $1000 expense. This oft-reported statistic is wrong. It's based on a survey that simply concluded that they wouldn't necessarily pull that amount from savings to meet an emergency expense. That doesn't mean they can't afford it or don't have more savings than that.
    - mythrwy 1y ago
      There are a lot of people right on the line though. May not be 40%, but it's a lot of people.
    - keeda 1y ago
      This seems to be the report and the specific section of interest: https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/emergency-savings-report/#americans-would-pay-for-an-emergency-from-their-savings https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/emergency-savings-r... You're right that the question they used is a bit vague, but there is a ton of other data in there that points to affordability as the main cause e.g. "Nearly a quarter of Americans have no emergency savings" and: "Sixty percent of Americans are uncomfortable with their level of emergency savings — 31 percent are very uncomfortable, and 29 percent are somewhat uncomfortable."
      - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        It is the social sciences, they can find data for any viewpoint they want to push.
- abeppu 1y ago
  ~60% of Americans can't handle a surprise expense of $1k. "A few" missed paychecks is generally going to be more than a $1k disruption. My understanding is lots of places have relatively little protections for tenants. Once you're behind on your rent, how are people in this position going to catch up? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saving-money-emergency-expenses-2025/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saving-money-emergency-expenses...
- Henchman21 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - at-fates-hands 1y ago
    >> There is no support system in this nation. WHAT? The US Federal Government spends over $3 TRILLION on social services. US states collectively spend around $1 TRILLION on social services. This is what's available just in my state: - temporary housing - free drug treatment programs - free addiction services - free food at hundreds of food shelves that also offer other amenities. - free public transportation - free and low cost job training - free and low cost pharmaceuticals and medicine I've never been homeless, because in several instances, I've actually used social services to survive and get back on my feet because that's why they're there. People complaining there is no support system are either willfully ignorant these programs even exist, or are just too lazy to take advantage of them. And I don't remember ANYBODY in ANY of the non-profit, state funded or state run offices asking me about my race or sexuality before they offered to help me. I honestly don't know what you're on about man, but saying there is no support system is pretty crazy to hear someone say.
    - keeda 1y ago
      Maybe the dissonance could be explained by being in different states? I can totally imagine social workers in some localities imposing their personal or religious beliefs on people needing help...
    - everdrive 1y ago
      Quite candidly for a lot of people whether or not there's enough "support" is just a matter of looking at outcomes. Are outcomes bad? Then (to some people) there is self-evidently not enough support.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      > WHAT? Please don't use uppercase for emphasis or be inflammatory in your commenting style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  > I very much doubt this is the case. The "one missed paycheck away" is cited a lot, but it's not entirely false, if a bit of a hyperbole. The majority of Americans (recent estimates I believe are around 60%) have no savings, and live paycheck to paycheck. So while not exactly "one missed paycheck away" it's pretty close. More accurate would be to say "Most Americans are one crisis away..." Median weekly earnings for full-time workers in the US was $1,196 in Q2 - so, half of Americans make even less than that (~4,700/month). That's not a lot, and in a lot of areas of the country, that doesn't leave much room to save much of anything, especially if you have kids and need childcare. Going off the BLS consumer expenditure survey from 2023 (most recent one I could find), average spent on housing was $25k/year or 2119/month, almost half the median monthly earnings. Just housing. Factor in food, transportation, healthcare, utilities and it's not hard to see how people can, and are, struggling, and are effectively one mishap from falling too far behind to catch up.
  - legitster 1y ago
    Although Median household income in the US is the more relevant figure, especially for things like housing costs, and that's at ~80k. While most Americans don't have "emergency savings" (heck, I don't), most of the credible studies more realistically peg it as 25% of American adults or 1 in 4.
    - thewebguyd 1y ago
      Yeah fair enough, household income paints a better picture. Even so, $80k household isn't a pretty picture with today's housing and food costs except for the most LCoL areas, and in those the income is going to be considerably lower. To afford the US today, we need to be closer to $80k+ individually rather than for the whole household.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  The median American has $5400 in savings. It varies, but people who don’t have a good support network can fall off the rails quickly, depending on there you live. Florida unemployment pays $32-275/week. This is why you see so many homeless veterans. They often end up geographically separated from family and see relationships weaken due to time and distance. Whenever someone says “mental health” as a causative factor in a social problem, that’s saying “don’t know, wont fix”
legitster 1y ago
I'm not sure if I am ignoring it? There should be a housing option of last resort for people, full stop. The cause and effect between mental health and housing should be irrelevant when we solve for housing.

watwut 1y ago

> The tough reality is that a lot of people on the street right now are happy enough living on the street. Are they? Happy enough for what, exactly?

danaris 1y ago
"Happy enough" not to be willing to give up their autonomy and jump through a whole bunch of bullshit hoops to get housing. "Happy enough" that housing that excludes queer people, men (or people who look like men), people who need to not have their names be public information because they're hiding from abusive prior partners/parents, pets, people who are currently addicted to drugs (and thus cannot realistically never have drugs around), or any of a host of other restrictions, will not be something they consider an option. (Note that these restrictions are a) from separate sources, not all on the same thing, and b) things I've heard about in the context of shelters, rather than low-income housing; however, it would not surprise me in the least if similar restrictions were placed on various programs to help house the homeless.)
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Also if you have work that doesn't line up exactly with the shelters opening or close, or you want to not be abused or assaulted at the shelter, or... There are cases where the street is safer or has more autonomy, like you say. Solutions need to offer similar things, so privacy, the ability to indulge in some little pleasures, to come and go at your own schedule are basic table stakes.
  - danaris 1y ago
    Right. A housing unit that lets you stay there indefinitely, for free, in an apartment that you can have to yourself—but doesn't allow alcohol, or is sex-segregated, or where you're mandated to come out and work for a specified period every day, or even that gets regularly searched for drug paraphernalia, is not going to work for a lot of people. Basically, housing for people like this needs to have, if anything, fewer restrictions on its use than housing for the general public. Give them the space to fuck up and to heal at their own pace, and not have to worry that those very normal kinds of problems will leave them worse off than before (eg, because if you're kicked out, your stuff gets confiscated—or even just because with these projects in place, there's less of a community of homeless people to support each other for those who still don't "fit").

bji9jhff 1y ago

Why are you making this a us vs them situation? They are citizens as much as you are and they inhabit their city like you are.

unethical_ban 1y ago
Except they shit on the sidewalk, piss on the shop steps, beg for food and cigarettes and get belligerent when turned away. If a vagabond or drug user can keep their habit from interfering with my safety and health, they are more welcome to do as they please.
- vkou 1y ago
  If you'd like to let them shit in your bathroom, or fund public bathrooms, you can be part of the solution. > their habit from interfering with my safety and health Needing to shit isn't a habit. If you weren't aware, its a basic life function, like eating and breathing. Its telling that you're piggybacking that on to your complaints about drugs (and also ignoring the untreated/poorly treated mental illness and straight up poverty legs of the homeless tripod).
  - abeppu 1y ago
    I think the sad part is I think most people would be ok funding more public bathrooms if we had confidence that they would be used only as bathrooms ... but in the places that need them the most, people have the expectation that they will be used for other purposes.
    - vkou 1y ago
      That same standard isn't applied to most other public services. Nobody says: "Well, I'd stand behind funding public roads, but I won't since people don't follow traffic laws on them."
      - abeppu 1y ago

pcrh 1y ago

> a lot of people on the street right now are happy enough living on the street. This must be one of the most brain-dead things I've read on this site. It's "not even wrong".

Spooky23 1y ago

The issue with SROs is nobody likes being near them and the crime and drug use they attract. My guess is as the asset bubbles pop, the marginal 70s-90s apartment complexes and second ring suburbs will be the new slums. People aren’t going to be able to afford cars as policy changes accelerate cost increases and wages continue to erode. City and near suburbs will be more attractive and expensive. You already see this happening in larger metro areas to some extent.

potato3732842 1y ago
If the bubbles pop that hard the state may ease up (reduce .gov imposed costs) rather than let those residents go from tax paying profit centers to assistance qualifying cost centers.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  Slumlords make alot of money and pay alot of taxes.

gwbas1c 1y ago

> Yes, these places are going to be drug infested slums. But it's still a good idea and I want my tax dollars to go towards it. From reading the article: 1: I got the impression a lot of these places weren't drug infested slums. 2: I got the impression that young, independent middle-class people could live in the nicer ones and save money. (Which they could use when they were ready to buy a home, start a family, ect.)

legitster 1y ago
I was being hyperbolic. I don't think all SROs would be "slums". But if we did provide housing for all 500,000+ homeless people in the US we shouldn't be surprised when some do become slums. SROs of yore came in all types, but one of the most notorious were flophouses, like the infamous "chicken-wire hotels".
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  > But if we did provide housing for all 500,000+ homeless people in the US we shouldn't be surprised when some do become slums. That's what happens in a free society. We can't force people to be responsible adults when they don't want to. (But we can, and should, contain any mess they create, which I think you and I agree about the bigger details.)

seanmcdirmid 1y ago

It just isn't feasible. * No one wants to live next to low barrier housing (for drug addicts, that don't require drug treatment or other social programs), not just the most generous people who like you think these people should be helped, but even other homeless people! They will try their luck outside because you just put them in with a drug addict crazier than they are. * If your city starts handing out free housing to all of its homeless, it will just attract more people in need of that housing, to the point that you started out with 50K on the street, housed 50K, and now you have 100K on the street! This is a problem with local solutions at least: the better you treat the problem, the worse the problem will get. Local resources quickly get exhausted with no visible progress made (and worse: things are worse than when you started!), even if you are technically making the country a better place. SROs and rooming houses of the past...still had standards, they would kick out people who were causing problems. The only reason it seemed better is that enough people were afraid of losing the little housing they had to keep their problems/addictions in check enough to keep it. It was just crappy enough that no one wanted to be there who could do better, having a bunch of SROs didn't necessarily make your city a destination.

Yizahi 1y ago
No one wants to like in the bad districts, yes. But people will happily buy apartments in such places if they are significantly cheaper than the median (I mean not like twice or thrice cheaper, but even 10-25% cheaper). Case in point - people often do check that narks don't shoot drugs in their potential new building, but still all apartments would be sold out eventually. People don't like living under airport glide path, but still all apartments and houses under it are sold like hot cakes. I had viewed a new low rise complex last year near city highway (unshielded), railway, metal recycling shop and a construction site, and only a big mall nearby as a benefit. It's almost fully sold out now. In my previous city some company had built a three building low economy complex right near the railway in the middle of the former warehouse district, with bysmal parking and connection options too, it's also sold out. tl;dr low housing price (in a region with jobs of course) beats ANY negative factor. At least until it's not literally slums, and possibly not even then.
- 1y ago