Something that stuck out to me in the reading was a particular emphasis within the RPA’s Third Regional Plan: The focus on the “Three E’s.” Robert Yaro and Tony Hiss claimed that the RPA focused primarily on improving the economics, equity, and environment of the Tristate Area and through that improvement, nearly all the region’s problems would be solved. Unfortunately, it’s a lofty goal to aspire to make significant change in any of those areas.
Since most of human behavior is motivated by money, I feel that an improved economy would probably have the largest impact on the region – also, improving the overall economy would inevitably improve the equity situation. I looked at an article in The Economist from last year that discussed de Blasio’s popular harping on the inequality within the city.
De Blasio basically reiterated what was already evident to urban economists: there is a large income gap in New York City, a microcosm of the larger problem of America’s income gap. The top 1% of the city’s population earns 39% of the total income, which is more than double the national figure of 19%. The gap causes lower income residents to be neglected in city decisions, have unequal access to opportunities and other city benefits, and leads them to incur issues like homelessness, drug abuse, and severe poverty. This exacerbated capitalist conundrum isn’t found strictly in bounds of the actual city but is spread throughout the Tristate Area.
Now the question is: What does this have to do with the RPA?
Part of the RPA’s goals in the past, specifically in the Third Regional Plan, was to improve the economy and lessen inequality. Their main suggestions (based on supposedly accurate data) were to:
1) Improve the mass transit system, allowing for easier and more efficient public transportation.
2) Revitalize the parks and other open public spaces.
3) Expand Manhattan’s business district.
While I’m not a city planner, none of these really seem to address the core problem: the aforementioned inequality. Like de Blasio emphasized in his campaign, there is a vast income gap in the city. What the RPA suggested are essentially plans that would further the income gap (or have no effect on it), the crux of what is leading to the issues they wanted to influence.
In my mind, the expansion of the subway system, an outcome of the RPA’s plans, seems to place more of an economic burden on city-dwellers. The MTA has been consistently raising prices and expanding the system and making it more “convenient” justifies this for them. The increased fares create an economic burden, one which highly paid New York inhabitants can afford and lower ones cannot. This would, in effect, emphasize the disparity in the city, not solve it.
Revitalizing the parks has a similar effect. You’re making public spaces “nicer” and “more refined,” which will effectually dictate who is societally acceptable to dwell there. If you revitalize a park, the homeless-looking man or even a lower class mother and her two kids will no longer be welcome there. Even in a less polarizing example, if you refine a park, more expensive restaurants and properties will pop up around that park – because location is key is real estate. Then, the richer members of the city will move in around that area or be patrons of the area. These are all outcomes that will increase the disparity, not reverse it.
Lastly, expanding the business district, in my mind, has no real impact on anything. You’re creating an urban area where supposedly more jobs can be acquired and maintained. And supposedly, this is to improve the economy and thus equity. But, an area is only as powerful as its people. Just because you open up an area for more businesses to flourish, doesn’t mean new businesses are going to move in and create more jobs. It also provides existing, wealthy businesses with the opportunity to expand and create further disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
So I guess the question really is: How much of what the RPA did actually spoke to their alleged goals? How much of what they said they were trying to accomplish was complete balderdash? Did they actually intend to achieve the goals they laid out in the Three E’s?
What I see is an incongruence between what they wanted to accomplish and the plans they actually laid out…
Article used: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/08/new-york-city?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2
I agree with your final assessment that as much as the RPA planned and wished to shrink the income gap and accomplish their goals, what they wanted to happen and what had actually happened were different. What they did provide, however, was a chance for things to change. They could not create jobs themselves for those living in poverty, so they created an opportunity. I believe that while revitalizing parks and open spaces may seem to be a stretch, improving mass transit system and expanding Manhattan’s business district were definitely two opportunities for the situation to improve. The mass transit system will benefit those who cannot afford a car, and allow them to find jobs in farther places.