In the reading, Wilson states that the socioeconomic composition of one’s neighbors determine how one’s life will become (i.e. if your neighbors are successful, you will strive to be like them). I am torn with this statement. I agree with what Wilson said in the sense that people affect each other. A similar example is friends and how they peer pressure one another to be like each other. If you surround yourself with hard working people, it pushes you to work hard as well, or then you feel like you do not fit in. However, when I look at my neighborhood, there are many people who just keep to themselves. I do not see them changing and trying to “become” like the rest of the neighborhood. I think the problem with Wilson’s statement is that people are only affected by others if they have a close relationship. If people live near each other, but do not interact, there will not be that much of an effect among each other.
I think the idea of vouchers is better than placing people with similar incomes all in one area. And I agree with policy makers that mixing classes is the solution for housing problem. However, I think there is a thin line within that answer. For instance, I do not think wealthy people would want to live with poor people, nor can poor people afford to live where wealthy people live. However, if the classes are more similar such as low income and low-middle income, then it seems more plausible. In addition, a benefit from the mixing of the classes is that it prevents an area to be only grouped by low income people, which gives a sentimentality that the area is labeled as “bad.”
My thoughts of gentrification is torn. I agree with Freeman that although it increases housing costs and can lead to many people leaving, it also has its advantages that it benefits the community because it increases the standard of living in a way. It just all depends on how you look at it–in the short run or in the long run. I wonder by how much does housing costs increases?
I find the statement of the characteristic of the neighborhood and its affect on values and norms of the area interesting. I concur that if neighbors trust each other, they are able to set up proper norms of behavior among the community and also protect the area from threats. That explains why some neighborhoods are more safe than others. However, I believe there are other factors besides trust as well, such as how neighbors have to look out for each other and care for one another.
Freeman mentions that affluent neighbors influence institutions in a neighborhood, which benefits it. Although this may be true, I also think it works the other way. The Upper West Side used to be an unsafe place to live (think “West Side Story” with the gangs). However, once the tenements in the area were demolished, institutions such as Lincoln Center was built which enhanced the neighborhood. Not only do people affect the community, but what the community has to offer attracts the people. It is like a never ending cycle, in which both sides influence one another.
