VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J relocated by the City and those evicted by private landowners and inflexibly to include the first but exclude the second group. [90] In Grootboom this Court held that a reasonable housing programme cannot disregard those who are most in need. A programme that leaves out the most desperate and vulnerable, even if conceived with the best of intentions, will fail to respond to the actual circumstances that section 26 is intended to ameliorate.85 [91] The City argues that the needs of those who live on properties it has designated as ―bad buildings‖ are greater than those rendered homeless through eviction by a private landowner. While the City‘s programme to relocate persons from ―bad buildings‖ cannot in itself be faulted, these relocations occur under the ―temporary accommodation‖ part of its policy. People who are evicted by private landowners fall under the ―emergency accommodation‖ part of the housing policy. The question is whether under the City‘s policy anyone in a housing crisis – besides those relocated by the City from ―bad buildings‖ – will ever qualify for temporary or emergency housing. 85 Id at para 44 the Court stated: ―To be reasonable, measures cannot leave out of account the degree and extent of the denial of the right they endeavour to realise. Those whose needs are the most urgent and whose ability to enjoy all rights therefore is most in peril, must not be ignored by the measures aimed at achieving realisation of the right. It may not be sufficient to meet the test of reasonableness to show that the measures are capable of achieving a statistical advance in the realisation of the right. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that everyone must be treated with care and concern. If the measures, though statistically successful, fail to respond to the needs of those most desperate, they may not pass the test.‖ 42