I was quite surprised to see the domino effect from neglecting the municipal fire service, to overcrowding, to drug abuse, to HIV/AIDS, and finally to urban decay. Yet when looking at the context of the year that this article was written, I wonder how the lowered stigma of an HIV/AIDS infected individual would still affect the rate of housing decay today. Since discrimination would be less as likely, an HIV/AIDS infected individual would have a lowered chance of getting fired or removed from their job. Therefore, they would still be able to pay their rent and prevent themselves from being homeless. Also, I wonder about the decisions that went into the solutions the paper recommended the city put in place in order to stop urban decay. It makes sense to not cut municipal services, encourage support, and provide low-income housing. Yet it seems quite strange that the paper never mentioned anything about treating the sick or diseased. It seems logical to prevent individuals from becoming homeless and to keep cities from neglecting on their foundational services, but if a city neglects its sick and drug-addicted population, wouldn’t that just cause more decay?