When I was naive, out on my own after 18 I found a low-income/income-restricted apartment complex …

> I don't think people want to admit it "can't be solved". The fact that many countries have solved it seems to indicate that you are wrong.

There are two kinds of 'low income.' There is a working-class neighborhood where people are not rich; life is hard, and stuff is a bit run down, but people are normal. Employed-ish, don't start fights and are respectful. The sense of community and friendliness might even be better than a 'normal' place because you need community to survive. Living in these places is fine. Then there is the kind of 'low income' you describe, which is a very different kind of place and people. When people talk about this topic, people get into big debates about it because they are thinking of 2 very different kinds of low-income places.

>This is one of the core problems and I don't think people want to admit it "can't be solved." It certainly can be solved. The real think is people in power don't want to solve it, and the voters don't want to invest in solving it. Admitting your own folly and vainness is much more difficult than dismissing it as an "impossible problem". >Some people are simply selfish and will not be able to live close to/with others without causing problems. _Most_ people do not want to live next to them. And those people do not get the help they need. Again, and investment no one cares to put in. Better to sweep it under the rug and try to rely on the security of higher income areas to deal with it than taking preventative measures.