Mar
9
Jessica: Class 12
March 9, 2015 | Leave a Comment
For the most part, I did not assume zoning laws to contribute to income inequality. I knew rent was not fair and people were suffering through that aspect, however I never deemed zoning laws to be the culprit. First off I was not aware of the manipulation zoning laws possessed so that less housing was made possible. That’s probably my fault, though. I should know by now there is always a motive for why things are the way they are. Foolish me. In my naive opinion I thought zoning laws were more a precaution to safety than another way of saying “we really don’t want you and here’s how we’ll keep you out”.
Additionally, the fact that luxury condos include separate elevator banks for the residents that are not paying as much for a space displeases me. When we discussed this in class I was assuming that there were separate elevator banks, such as how some buildings have an East and West side building and two separate elevator banks to get to the separate sides of the building. However, the separate entrances specifically for the respective party is oddly disturbing and a little repetitive. How is it possible that this is fair? I understand that not all residents of a building would have access to certain amenities such as a gym or terrace, because those are luxurious amenities to have access to, but the separate entrances is taking it a bit too far. I thought income inequality was predominantly a jobs and salary argument, but now I can see that housing also is a factor.
From the Washington Post article, it is clearly evident that the housing problem can be solved through looser housing laws. Affordable housing is unlikely to occur if housing is regarded in this matter. Not only does the hypothetical of the 1,000 cars sold in New York make it easier to understand the housing problem, but also shows how unfair it is. One must also consider the fact that most of those New York “car buyers” will not be from New York. They will be oceans away with seven of their own cars. I understand most of the class disagrees with income inequality and I do as well however income inequality does not affect me as much as affordable housing does, so I resonate with this issue more. As a student I’m not sure how income inequality will directly affect me as someone with an entry level job, however as someone who would enjoy living in Manhattan and not spending more than 10% of my day commuting, affordable housing should be a thing. Why are we restricting housing just for exclusivity purposes?
After I finished reading the Daily News article I was impressed yet shocked. New York is not successful because of this income inequality “crisis”. I did not really understand where the author was coming from for most of the article. At times I strongly agreed and other times I vehemently disagreed. For instance I agree that increasing welfare will only appeal for more people to come to New York and widen the income inequality gap. However I completely disagree that someone in the mailroom can ultimately improve their chances of enhancing their future. Plus where are these statistics coming from that a child from New York has a 10% better chance than from Atlanta. I understand there is a lot of mobility that one can take advantage of in this city, but someone who starts in the mailroom and someone who starts on the trading floor are already on different levels.
Overall after reading all the articles I would agree that affordable housing could make New York a better city to live in, closing the income inequality gap a small amount. Additionally, it could only help society knowing people are not at risk of becoming homeless or feel the pressure to pay their rent or mortgage. Furthermore, affordable housing with proper entrances could limit the unnecessary segregation as well. In the future, I hope affordable housing is a social norm throughout all major cities so citizens do not have to fear about their future housing options.
