She had no tub, no shower and no heater. She heated it with the stove and a fireplace. Eventually, the landlord insisted on providing her a heater. She never used it and showered every day at the Y because she had no tub or shower.

I have very mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, it casts some light on housing standards from decades ago. The amenities we expect for any and all housing were simply not expected for all housing types.

On the other hand, by some definitions, this woman was "homeless" or at least "inadequately housed." Her two bedroom apartment sounds a bit like a glorified shed.

I'm stunned that this seems to not be making anyone's radar. It's the kind of accommodations that winds up making headlines as illegal and run by an abusive landlord taking advantage of people.

But it was presumably legal when she moved in, so people are fine with this? While decrying SROs as unacceptable housing these days for some reason.

I think my cognitive dissonance is pretty maxed out at the moment.