As with any controversial case, there are always two opposing arguments. In this argument of urban renewal and displacement of homes, Wick Anderson attempts to advocate renewal by making home displacement sound positive. He says that the original intent was to demolish these existing houses and “build new house there for low-and moderate-income people” (Fullilove 81). However, Mary Bishop completely obliterates that argument by pointing out that the area that the government is planning on demolishing already has low to moderate income families. Furthermore, she points out that the facial expressions of all these people are evidence enough that they do not want to move.

Another major problem urban renewal brings forward is the sense of insecurity. A home is where a person is supposed to feel the most secure. In a time when entire communities can be demolished, it is extremely difficult for a person to live with a sense of security and safety, especially if that person lives in a primarily black community. A strong example is the case of Mr. Charles Meadows, who had bought a large house, finished paying off the mortgages, and began investing in the house, when the government all of a sudden decided to demolish the houses in his community. Meadows received a mere fraction of what his house would have been worth had he placed it in the real estate market. Situations like these coerce house owners to not buy anything and to not make their homes more “homey” as they live with the constant fear of the possibility of having to leave anytime.