In the article, “Making New York Smaller,” Roger Starr argues that in order for New York City to escape the financial crisis and avoid “doomsday,” the city must accept the fact that its population is shrinking and plan accordingly. He begins the article by stating that at this point “doomsday” is inevitable and that whether it comes ahead of schedule or within the next 5 or 7 years, it will indeed occur. He then goes on to explain the causes of the economic crisis, along with initiatives that he states would lighten New York City’s “fiscal burdens.” Lastly, he provides a particular solution, that although controversial, would solve the crisis and allow New York City to once again prosper economically and thrive.
One thing that I found to be extremely interesting was how he explained the sources of revenue and expenses that the city incurs. He stated that in a sense the city is comprised of 2 cities, the economic city and the Political city. The Economic City includes all of the public and private enterprises that create goods and services in New York. The Economic City is the main source of the city’s wealth. Furthermore, it produces jobs for the city’s inhabitants and spreads the city’s wealth among its constituents. However, one problem that comes along with the Economic City is that recently its exports that it ships to foreigners have lost their attraction and in order to pay for the cost of its imports, New York City must rely on its reputation and persuade investors to lend them money. He goes on to explain that by underestimating costs and overestimating revenues, the city’s constituents were forced to default on their loans, increasing the burden placed on the part of New York City, the Political City.
On the other hand, the political city provides services that people require but for which they are unable or not willing to do so. Some examples that he cites are the education system and criminal justice. This component of the city also brings in revenue through taxes and funding from the federal government, who provides money for families with dependent children, the disabled and the poorly housed. However, the city only gets back three quarters of the money that they spend through the services that they provide. He states that one problem with the Political City is that they are unable to meet the rising costs incurred through their programs and services with the limited amount of revenue that they receive. They don’t have a sufficient amount of revenue to provide enough jobs to the population. Their lack of revenue leads to economic decline and an increasing unemployment rate in New York City as they are unable to support the cities inhabitants, forcing people to move elsewhere for jobs.
While reading this article I noticed that New York City has changed drastically from 1976, the time that this article was written, until today. Firstly, over more than 35 years the number of people in the city has risen from 8 million to almost 20 million people, 2 and a half times the amount that there were in 1976. Back then, the city was unable to accommodate and provide for 8 million people and today it is the place that 20 million people call their home. Furthermore, in the article Starr mentions that New York has not fully tapped the tourist market, due to the fact that tourists don’t feel safe and comfortable in New York. Today, New York City is visited by millions of people from all over the globe. People from all different countries wish that one day they can visit New York, stand on the red stairs in Times Square and visit the top of the Empire State Building. I was amazed to see how far the city has grown in respect to tourism in a matter of 35 years. Lastly, he mentions that New York is no longer the “classiest address for a major corporate headquarters.” However, today many of the major Fortune 500 companies have offices and headquarters in New York. New York City has become the center of business and trade and companies all over the world desire to have offices in the city, where they can be in the center of all the action.
Although, Starr’s plan of shrinking the population due to the declining number of jobs and concentrating the city’s inhabitants in certain sections seemed to be plausible at the time to avoid as he calls it “doomsday,” I wonder if he could have ever envisioned New York City as it is today. Although his plan may have allowed New York City to escape the financial crisis that it was experiencing, it would have thrown away all of its potential for growth. By knocking down stretches of empty blocks and terminating the services provided in the area, he would have destroyed any hopes of future growth and allowing New York City to become what it is today. One question I have for him is if his plan was enacted, how would it allow for the city to grow in the future and once again thrive?
