I have to agree with most of your points about Amanda Burden. She constantly talks as if she is for the people of the community, but all of her actions points to the opposite. To answer your question, “Did the woman we saw chairing those zoning meetings seem like the sort of person who was trying to help people or an economy,” I would have to say absolutely not. The way she demanded removal of those brave enough to speak their minds proves that she’s not interested in the opinions of the residents.

Amanda Burden clearly is not the only one guilty of not caring about residents. In every project outlined in chapter three of Scott Larson’s book residents vehemently protested them. The residents lost every single time. While some projects were halted – let’s examine the reason why. The first time Hudson Yard’s redevelopment was halted was because, “a local cable television provider viewed a new stadium as competition for Madison Square Garden, the sports and event venue it owned” (p 35-36). The stadium plan was vetoed and “in spite of the administration’s efforts to unite members of the city’s elite, redevelopment of Hudson Yards was shelved” (36). In other words, this project was only shelved because private companies could not get together. This halting had nothing to do with the protests of the people. Of course work didn’t stop there. The development was slowed down this time by financial difficulties. Additionally “aside form the slowing economy, the project was plagued by the collapse of slow progress of the three projects that had been expected to “kick-start” further West side development” (p 37). Again – the reasons for delay has nothing to do with the people actually living in the area.

This trend continues with the Atlantic Yards and Colombia University. The local community protested and sited that these developments would raise the cost of rent to high and force them out. Those who tried to hold out against this gentrification in the case of the expansion of the Colombia University were constantly met with the imposing eminent domain.

So it boils down to this – if we’re not listening to the people who live in the area, the people who have the most to lose then who are we listening to? Clearly, we’re listening to corporations and developers with large financial interests in these “blighted” areas. Of course blighted gets assigned by those who are already backing these developers. In the end, how can any of these people claim to be building “with Jacobs in mind” when she advocated community above all else? These building methods where bureaucrats influence what kinds of development can happen through zoning and funding completely disregards any existing culture and familiarity built by the community itself.