This weekend’s readings discussed the manner in which ‘benign neglect’ and planned shrinkage’ were supposed to ease the tension felt in impoverished communities. Communities such as the south Bronx were subject to large amounts of crime and required extensive community services in order to maintain higher levels of safety. However, in the eyes of Moynihan, the tension would ease quicker if the issues were left unattended. The other policy that was discussed, ‘Planned Shrinkage’ involved the removal of services and resources from poor neighborhoods and relocating them to neighborhoods that were better off.

The idea of planned shrinkage was supposed to let poor communities fend for themselves. They were being denied basic services because it was believed that eventually these communities ‘would die out’. However, this policy really just infuriated the members of the community. If the conditions reached a level where it was no longer inhabitable, these communities would just relocate to other areas. This would then increase the crime rates of the communities that were deemed ‘better off’. My issues with benign neglect and planned shrinkage were that they are inhumane and do not actually address the issues that poorer communities are facing. I find it disturbing that Moynihan felt it was necessary to leave these cities that were in dire need of help. As crime went up, the cities costs also went up. Fires continued to be a huge problem in cities like the Bronx. The infrastructure that was destroyed was never rebuilt, thus giving the people of these communities no reason to remain in that city.

I believe that Moynihan’s policies of “benign neglect” and “planned shrinkage” were immoral and did not truly address the issues that were at hand. However, I do believe that this is still an important part of our history that teaches to not neglect the people who live in a community.