Last week’s readings focused on how ethnocentric ideals and a biased lens forced out thriving communities under the name of “urban renewal.” Though there were social consequences of lost connections and economic challenges in starting over, studies have also shown correlations with urban decay and health problems.
Slum neighborhoods experienced reduced fire protection services. Overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, and aging structures left these already blighted neighborhoods at higher risk for fires. When inadequate funding forced firehouses to shut down, these services were typically cut in a poorer area. Because these areas were already prone to fire danger, the incidence of fires increased greatly. One suspected cause is that these areas, already subjected to decay, were not seen worthy of protecting. The natural destruction of fire would bring about clearance and make these areas available for redevelopment. Instead of forced clearance, intentional neglect and the decay process would cause these neighborhoods to fall apart and residents to eventually move out. The increase in fires prompted for reopening of fire houses, but all 4 of them were in low-risk areas. This shows political motivation behind denial of these important services as a tool for urban renewal.
People began to flee these neighborhoods and there were many abandoned properties left behind. As the city seized them, poor planning caused them to fall apart and some squatters moved in to repair and recover. The city wanted to put these properties for sale, but because of the location and poor conditions buyers did not want to take risks in purchasing them. Some were sold off in risk free auctions and other became dumps. Political organization against this treatment lead to backlash, but little policy change. The reason for this is perhaps the minimal influence that such groups had in politics. Even though they rallied and tried to make a change, their interests were not represented in city actions. This was similar to how neighborhoods were relocated in urban renewal projects – they had little to say because they did not have effective political power. It seems that the desirability factor was based on how “white” the neighborhood was. The white neighborhood’s organizing and protesting efforts were always taken more seriously and as a result more successful.
Health consequences of overcrowded, poor living conditions included psychological stress and infectious disease. Those who had the strongest social ties were most impacted by this stress, which resulted in increased vulnerability to sicknesses and alcoholism. Living conditions created breeding grounds for diseases such as tuberculosis and increased transmissions. Separating the poor and confining them to slums had severe health consequences. The solution, which would have been to increase services to these areas and enact new laws to improve minimum living standards was not implemented because these communities were not seen as worth saving. There was not enough real estate value and developers did not want to take risks.
When I was reading the Public Health article, the impoverished neighborhoods (Brownsville, East New York, South Bronx, etc.) immediately rang in my mind as “the ghetto.” They tend to have a greater minority population and cheaper rent because they are not desirable places to live. Even though so many years have passed and the country as a whole has been moving in a progressive direction, these neighborhoods continue to be disadvantaged and receive less resources. These shortcomings have negative health consequences and especially impact the poor.
Discussion Question: How can impoverished neighborhoods increase their value in politicians’ eyes and gain influence? How can negative health consequences be avoided?
