Does an exclusive focus on cash flow lead to a bad place?

[Jack Moran]

Based on advice provided here at Bigger Pockets and elsewhere I've been looking into multi-family with a concentration on cash flow.

I found a 3FAM with 3brs each for $250,000 in Worcester, MA where there's zillions of 'em. It looks solid. It's rented, but it's in a neighborhood with no off street parking surrounded by homes that are all the same, postage stamp lots so small a kid can't throw a ball and houses so close and tall the sun doesn't reach the ground.

Rents in Worcester probably get 12-1400 month easy for a 3br. Conservatively, assuming $1,200 each of the three units the house should easily bring in $3,600/month.

City Water and Sewer, separate utilities and Worcester property tax is reasonable, so PITI comes to just $1,871 for 100% financing which would mean $1,729 positive cash flow just for taking the thing. This seems almost too good to be true, even at $250,000 so it's tempting, instant cash flow, like you would need to be crazy stupid to pass it up.

Here's my concern, I visited the property today, and given the neighborhood, I would NEVER choose to live there or see someone I care about live there.

If I took it, I would feel like I was making a buck off of the misfortune of those that didn't have the wherewithall to get themselves out of that place.

Is this typical of where a concentration on cash flow leads?

If that's the case, I guess I don't have the stomach for it. I'd rather see the thing knocked down.

Is this an accurate conclusion about the nature of cash flow investing to the exclusion of appreciation? I'm not opposed to efficient urban housing, I just don't want to get rich perpetuating a slum. If this is about right, then I guess I need to adjust my focus away from an exclusive focus on the cash flow, no?

Are there strong cash flowers that can be gotten in decent neighborhoods that you would be proud to live in?

Is this example not representative of where a concentration on cash flow investing leads?