Mar
9
Zoning = Segregation – Tina Jing Ru Shen
March 9, 2015 | Leave a Comment
A lot of elementary and middle school students are required to attend schools that are within their zone. Some zones have terrible schools, and that is often the case in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, students living in low-income neighborhoods fail to receive an adequate education to prepare them for high school. This form of inequality is the center of concern in the readings, and it involves other kinds of inequality such as racial, economic, and educational. Zoning is like a positive cycle that keeps the poor and uneducated in place. If students in poor zones have to go to bad schools within the zone, they will not be able to get into specialized high schools (as in the case of New York City), and even more so good colleges. In this day and age, education plays a large role in determining future jobs. If students are not able to excel in school, they will be less likely to get professional occupations. Therefore, they will remain in a low-income neighborhood.
Although the city has taken measures to reduce income inequality in the form of zoning by providing affordable housing to low income families in a well-off neighborhood, there have been setbacks that only emphasized the inequality that exists. As described in Fox’s article, extravagant condos offer certain spaces for the poor, but they also set up a “poor door” so that the poor enter the building from a different entrance from the wealthy residents. How is this different from the racial segregation that occurred across the country in the twentieth century? This “poor door” feature has an overwhelming resemblance to the “White entrance” and the “Black entrance” that we learned about in history class. Are we returning to that age? The Inclusionary Housing Program may have been an effective way to include the poor in rich zones so that they have more and better opportunities, but by applying the “poor door,” nothing has improved.
Pethokoukis reinforces the idea that zoning and high prices of living are factors that lead to income inequality even throughout states. Pethokoukis makes an interesting point that income inequality within states can be alleviated if the government attracts innovative companies to base in struggling states so that they can hire highly educated workers. However, the problem that we are experiencing right now is that not all students are offered higher education. This is the actual problem. We need to find a way to give under-privileged students the same opportunities so that they can be the so-called highly educated workers that almost all companies today are looking for. I believe that for states that are struggling as a whole, the government should encourage existing companies that manufacture goods to base themselves in these countries. Now that most companies perform their manufacturing process overseas for its cheapness, we should find a way to bring manufacturing back to the United States. This way, more job opportunities will open up to the not so privileged Americans.
One point that I agree with Glaeser’s argument is that we need to focus on how to provide mobility to poor. As mentioned above, even education under zoning segregates the amount of opportunities that the upper class can get and the lower class can get. I agree that education is a key factor to give the poor at least equal opportunity to move up the ladder. Although Glaeser makes compelling points that New York should focus less on increasing welfare, and I do agree with them to an extent, but there are some poor New Yorkers that have been poor for generations, mainly because they could not get better education and as a result failed to move up the ladder. As Glaeser implies, heightened welfare will only attract more low-income families who want to take advantage of the benefit. But that welfare will also help the people who actually need the support. I mentioned in a previous post about Medicaid. I know some people who take advantage of the system and get Medicaid even though they do not deserve it. Some get food stamps even though they are capable of working, but choose not to because they can live adequately with the food stamps. We need to monitor these people who abuse the system, but also increase welfare to the people who actually need them.
Although this seems idealistic, it is the ideal measure that needs to be taken to resolve what Glaeser discussed. In addition, zoning policies must be improved or even lifted. Students should be given the freedom to education at the very least. By putting zoning laws in place, the poor are bound to stay poor because they would not learn anything from their mediocre zone school. Also, if condos are allowing low-income and high-income to live in the same building, they should enter through the same entrance too. Forcing the poor renters to enter and leave through a different door is an obvious indication of segregation that was not resolved by the inclusion program. What I spoke of in the previous paragraph seem difficult to achieve, so how can we monitor the poor to make sure that they are not free-loading the government and not working hard from their benefits?
