Which is better: Safe but expensive, or affordable but dangerous

[Jeff Jarrett]

"Safe" is all relative. I could be in San Diego feeling all comfy and cozy and "safe" and then get hit by a car or experience an earthquake. Give me the cheap anytime!

And how many San Diego residents on average die per year because of earthquakes ? The answer for most years it's a big fat zero. They don't get hit with a big one that often.

[LivingInExiles]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

St. Louis has nice, relatively safe areas that are pretty cheap compared to cities like Chicago. Your chance of getting shot in these areas are probably about equal to your chance of getting stuck by lightning.

I think I'm confusing the question of this thread.

Are we talking about cities all together, or neighborhoods? Because I'm talking about neighborhoods.

[dem3456]

Safe but expensive is better in my opinion. You wont really have to worry about your financial situation if you live in a dangerous cheap place, but in a worst case scenario, you could end up dead. Better to be safe than sorry.