It is understandable that the Bloomberg administration wished to renew Willet’s point. After all, it was dirty and filled with crime. However, to uproot the current business owners only to replace them with new ones only improves the land itself and does little to help any individual. The ideal decision would be to improve the area by getting tough on crime within the area and supporting the businesses that reside there, but it is much easier to start from a blank slate.
This is an example of a nuanced issue. If New York were able to get these immigrants into training programs, then they would be able to climb the financial ladder. However, Bilefsky’s article noted that it was impossible for immigrant’s to take English classes because of their 12 hour work day. Instead of uprooting the local populace, it would have been better for the administration to invest money into the businesses so that the business owners could improve upon their own businesses and lives, and thus, reform the area themselves.
New York mayoral administrations often improve upon dilapidated neighborhoods by gentrifying because it is an effective way of lowering crime rates and improving economic growth, but it comes at the expense of those living there. The government is there to support the people and thus should act accordingly. These ethnic enclaves are there to support each other. If they are destroyed, then there business will likely suffer no matter where they relocate. Only if the neighborhood’s entire operation could be relocated together is the entire project worthwhile, but that too is unlikely. Nonetheless, it seems counterproductive for the city government to abandon its own people.
