I would have never associated fire incidences and poverty, especially in the context of the decline of NYC in the late 1960- 1970s. I knew that the City was in major decline during these eras but reading this article, I could visualize the someone dropping a match, burning the City, with people running from their homes, leaving empty buildings. The author of this article illustrates the Rand Institute as the arsonist, as city officials prompt and look on. One other comparison is that the fire is an epidemic, which the author uses quite literally as he shows that the fire incidences fit with the S-shaped pattern of other epidemics, such as measles. He presents the Rand Institute as the origin of this disease, (which he believes is a reality in more ways than one as he provides its associated with HUD and human testing) and as the government as its condoner. The describes the government as giving the Rand Institute power to dictate its resources and published flawy information, as the Institution did not truly attempt to fully evaluate the fire statistics by not bothering to collect real data or concern a wide multitude of variables involved. However, their statistics gave way to the government removing resources, like fire departments, from certain low-income black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Bronx through initiatives like ‘planned shrinkage.’  The removal of these resources from these neighborhoods exacerbated already difficult living situations and what once may have been prejudiced exaggerations of fire rates by Rand grew into real destruction of people’s homes  and more struggle.

His analogy of fires with an epidemic is intriguing because it works as a counter argument to views of Moynihan’s  and Starr’s in the beginning of the paper. You don’t blame an epidemic on the people. The people are a casualty to greater forces that cause the epidemic. This thinking directly opposes that the high fire incidents in these neighborhoods due to the malicious nature of its inhabitance. Later in the paper the author undermines Starr’s quote about lack of community in these neighborhoods by discussing the tight bonds between people facing adversity and who did not have proper support and stability because of outside forces. The author also attributes the decline and literal burning down of these neighborhoods to the Republican office, and notes that no party or government official acknowledges responsibilities for this epidemic.  I don’t think that any one in government will ever acknowledge this point of view, which basically says the government wanted parts of the City to burn, so it could focus on higher class white neighborhoods. I wonder what about other poorer parts of the City in Brooklyn or Queens, and if similar situations happened in other major American cities because these cities also experienced urban decline.

Discussion Question: Do you think the assessment of fire as an epidemic is accurate?