Mar
10
Andrew Chen Blog Post #6
March 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment
The issue of de facto segregation comes from the Inclusionary Housing Program, where low-income families are able to live in the city at a slashed price. However, after reading that developers are trying to limit access to the full utility of the building, as well as create separate entrances, I didn’t favor the policy as much. I don’t quite understand how one is going to restrict the use of facilities, while tenants are all in the same building. An example of this is Stonehenge Village, where a new gym could only be used by tenants that paid the normal rate. I support Mayor Bill de Blasio’s planned efforts to change up the zoning code. However, as to how long this is going to take, as well as the extent of the reformation, no one can say for sure.
The article by Daniel Hertz brings up a good point that zoning laws prevent the construction of low-cost housing in neighborhoods, as well as limit the total number of housing in any given area. This restricts the ability for lower-income families to be able to buy their way into a neighborhood, and the wealthy will set the minimum prices. It has also been found that zoning laws resulted in rising housing prices, and increased segregation. I feel that the main conflicts of interest within this issue is racial tension and discrimination. With the current events going on around the United States, tension seems to be at an all time high, with more incidents occurring. This will not help desegregate our cities, nor will it help de Blasio’s plan.
In “A Happy Tale of Two Cities”, de Blasio focuses on the problem on income inequality as his main focus for his campaign. But can de Blasio really help balance the inequality during his term? I feel like fixing income inequality, especially in New York City, is a time-consuming task that will take over four years to implement a sound plan. The research mentioned in the article takes an interesting stance on why New York City would be the seventh most unequal metropolitan area in the United States. Because of the lesser need for cars in order to travel while in the city, it appeals to those who cannot afford a car for transportation. The generosity of New York City also attracts low-income people, as NYC provides housing for more than 400k residents, and vouchers for 225k residents.
I agree with Ed Glaeser’s opinion in “A Happy Tale of Two Cities” as it brings up a very good point of view that I never considered before. If de Blasio were to focus on making New York City an “ever-larger local welfare state”, the problem of income inequality would never be solved. Perhaps this idea that the issue of income inequality will never be fully solved, but rather only improved slightly will come into effect in the future. I think that capitalism still drives income inequality, not only in New York City, but in all of the United States. The incentive to work hard leads to the notion of earning more money, and this thought is ingrained in everyone growing up.
James Pethokoukis from the American enterprise Institute points to the fact that with large innovative companies, more highly educated workers are hired, which generates more jobs in local services, thus benefiting everyone. He debunks the Financial Times analysis that puts the cause for weak housing recovery on income inequality, and brings up innovative technology companies as a possible solution. I believe in this idea that more educated workers and new firms will be attracted to the generation of new jobs, resulting in a more efficient way to help improve inequality.
