Mar
10
Blog Post #5 – Jia Jun (Jay) Wu
March 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Just today I overheard my coworkers talking about how Williamsburg was “getting better.” Studies will say that the area’s median income has dramatically increased and large residential buildings were constructed. But at what cost? It has resulted in prices skyrocketing and pushing people out. The portion of low-income apartments does not equal the families who can no longer live in that area. And so gentrification to accommodate the luxurious lifestyle of the rich continues to grow and expand.
I really enjoyed the Washington Post article written by Daniel Hertz. It provided a short, comprehensive summary to zoning and reveals its problems and possible solutions. To think that zoning laws would blatantly segregate based on income and spur further and future problems is eye-opening. It’s ridiculous how the judicial system has failed to see this on so many occasions. But as more land is used for apartment buildings, one must be wary of price inflation. So the point of expanding housing subsidies alongside affordable housing seems ideal in alleviating the effects of restrictive zoning. However, the “poor door” concept is completely absurd. I don’t understand why this is accepted on an institutional level. In addition, publicly accessible areas should include parts of the building like rooftops. If it must be exclusive, perhaps a gym, charge everyone a rate, but it’s wrong exclude a select group of people with no valid basis.
I also enjoyed the American Enterprise Institute article written by James Pethokoukis. Educated workers and innovative technology companies spur growth for a city. That much is clear. Making it cheaper to live in innovative cities and funding relocation is a stretch, but are commendable plans. The take-away I got is the importance of education. This is what I believe to be the determinant for social mobility. It is where one spends his childhood and adolescents honing skills for his future. Not only is it important for its educational value, it is extremely vital for learning social values. Together, they make new ideas and in turn, the city and its people prosper.
Ed Glaeser’s “A Happy Tale of Two Cities” hits on many points of income equality affecting New York City. However, viewing income inequality as success is very strange to me. I don’t disagree that income inequality is inherent. The cycle that continued social welfare attracting more poor, and thus, leading to more inequality makes sense. But the opportunity argument is questionable. It was mentioned that in one study a bottom 20 percent person has a 10% chance to make it to the top 20 percent. 10% is low in almost all contexts. What are the chances of that happening to someone who belongs to the top 40%? The access to opportunity is obviously much higher for him. While social mobility may be greater in New York City, considering matters like housing and cost of living, it is not easy to attain and needs to be addressed.
So what do you want New York to be? A city of diverse peoples from all backgrounds? A sleek, technologically innovative city? A city driven by money and finance? Can these traits coexist or is it winner takes all?
