After reading the paper for this week, it doesn’t seem to make sense why the city would reduce fire-control in areas that would statistically have more fires. Normally, these weird instances of pulling plugs and cutting support from people who need them is a matter of saving money. But here, cutting off the amount of fire departments available to control fires is a matter of life and death in some cases. However, once we establish that this is a “planned shrinkage,” and that the effects of reducing services in low-income areas was intentional, we see that the reason was in indeed disperse low-income populations.
Referring to Cameron’s flow-chart, I wonder if getting rid of AIDS dense areas was part of the plan as well or if it was just a consequence of dispersing low-income areas. Either way, the problem worsened and the spread of AIDS became harder to control.
