solved Instructions: Please read the case scenario attached and respond to

Instructions: Please read the case scenario attached and respond to the two discussions below. No citations are needed. Each response should be at least 1 paragraphed in length.1. “In this situation my concern is that the land for which development is needed may pose a health risk to those tenants once the building of the housing units is done. All though there is a need for low-income housing and there is only one location left, the urgency to build is the focus rather than the long-term health effects that could be of real concern later for those tenants who may be vulnerable. Most individuals who are considered low-income already are dealing with health issues in some capacity with lack of proper access to medical care. One question that I’m raising is has this land been tested as safe for building given its history of previous nuclear waste? This situation raises ethical issues for me because the safety and well-being of the tenants is being overlooked to save energy in the long run for electricity.Although the city has assured everyone that there is not an issue what substantial proof is provided to support that claim? As the student because of my concern for those tenants I would ask my supervisor to inquire about the safety of the land and to what extent has it been approved overall safe for long term housing. I understand that my personal feelings should not interfere but as a social work student I think it is important to advocate for those who may be affected by this decision. Overall, I would ask to be removed from this project.”2. “As a student, I would ask my supervisor if we could propose an agreement with the city. I would suggest that we only agree to the housing location if the city will sign an agreement prohibiting specific garbage dumping at the site. This way, the community will have legal recourse if the city violates the deal.This conclusion supports the central aim of attaining housing. My idea addresses the question of whether quantity or quality of housing is more important. The answer is both are important, so my solution addresses both priorities. My main idea is that the collaboration can compromise on location under reasonable safety conditions. To refuse to put the housing project at the site would mean taking for granted the opportunity to get housing for people that need it. However, I don’t believe that it would be reasonable to support the location without safety precautions.This idea is clearly expressed through a written agreement that both the city and collaborative could sign. For example, there would be wording that explicitly prohibits dumping for certain chemicals and materials. This decision implies that low-income families would have access to housing in an unideal situation. My point of view is that people deserve better than to live next to a garbage site, but given the limited space availability, compromises must be made. Ultimately, if the city and collaboration are unwilling to sign an agreement, I would refuse to support the site for families. I can accept an unideal location but not an unsafe one.”