Both Santos and Bilefsky gave conflicting opinions about what to do with Willets Point and honestly, it’s hard to come up with a straightforward answer. On one hand, it is the government’s job to increase the overall quality of the area, but on the other hand the project that is set to urbanize Willets Point will put a lot of immigrants and low wage workers out of jobs. Although there is no right answer and both sides are right to a certain extent, I would side with Santos’ argument and say that keeping Willets point as is would be the correct thing to do from an ethical perspective. Although it is the government’s job to urbanize and increase the standard of living, it is unfair to the people who are dependent on their low wage job at Willets Point because they will be out of jobs and it will be hard for them to earn money. While Bilefsky argues that the project to urbanize Willets Point will create many new jobs and generate a lot of money, it is evident that these new jobs will not be for the hardworking immigrants who originally worked in the area.
Apart from the ethical perspective, another reason that I would side with Santos’ argument is that going to Willets Point for services is cheap and practical. If your car breaks down, you can go to Willets Point and fix it for cheaper than it would be to repair it at a mechanic somewhere else. This results in a situation where both parties benefit because your car gets fixed for a cheap price, and the person who repaired your car at Willets Point makes a profit. If Willets Point gets urbanized, then it won’t be possible to get services for cheap in the area. Both Santos and Bilefsky have a good argument as to why their opinion is right which makes it difficult to pick a side, but if I had to I would side with Santos because it is the morally right argument.
