Imagine you are a well intentioned urban planner for a large city.

You have been asked by the city to choose a location for a housing project.

You chose:

Cheaper land at the outskirts of the city. You intend to provide schools, public transport, and other services.

You find that the land chosen is low lying and swampy. It requires more funding for strong foundations.

You chose to:

continue as planned

You continue with the planning process and begin building. However, new legislation makes it so that federal funding can only be used to increase the number of residents and not to enhance living conditions.

You decided to:

allow for an increase in the number of residents

Construction of the building is finished and residents begin to move in. The building quickly becomes overcrowded and facilities can't hold up to the amount of families, as you were unable to adjust living conditions for the families. Reports of cracked sewer lines and trash build-up are common. Living conditions are rapidly deteriorating. Public transportation to the development still hasn't been implemented. 

You decided to: 

ask the city for more funding

The city will only fund repairs for minor complaints. Residents continue to live in subpar conditions.

Then a natural disaster occurs. Many residents were unable to evacuate on time because of the lack of public transportation. The building suffered extreme damage because of its shoddy construction and weak foundation. Those residents who survive are unable to return to their homes.

The city claims that it will use this as an opportunity to revitalize the projects, but refuse to specify or allocate resources for recovery.

The process you just went through will likely happen again.

End.