Hey Rebecca, great blog post, I think you bring up a number of interesting points. Unlike you, I wasn’t very surprised when I read about the city’s failings during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Personally, it took almost two weeks for my family to get their electricity and heat back after Sandy. We actually had to take refuge at a family-friend’s house, (although their area was closer to the water and struck a lot harder, it was also very upper-crust, so they got their electricity and heat back pretty quickly.) So although “crisis driven urbanization” is undoubtedly unfair, it’s not particularly unexpected.

I agree that this injustice may be facilitated by the way communities are built. Richer communities can afford generators and sturdier buildings, while less rich areas cannot. However, I don’t think the city was nondiscriminatory in the way they went about with their restoration efforts. If richer areas are less affected by storms, shouldn’t the bulk of the restoration efforts go towards poorer areas that need it more? I think it makes more sense to work from the bottom up.

Maybe I’m just jaded, but the points Checker brings up in her article aren’t surprising to me either. When money becomes the number one priority, it follows that cities and governments will pursue economic interests “at the expense of environmental safety and public health.” A perfect example of this is the recent water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

I agree that in order for cities to be more equal with the way they treat their citizens, they need to put human life above financial gain.