I find it interesting that in the final reading, “quality of life” policing is mentioned in tandem with the “broken windows” theory because I have the same problem with both. The ideas make sense – as, admittedly, the “trickle down theory” in economics does. However, these ideas are all contingent on the idea that people are inherently good and non-corrupt. In this case, the major issue I can see with “quality of life” policing is that the police can then use it as an excuse to bully and discriminate. There are definite targets for this type of treatment, and it makes me uncomfortable to know that the policing occurs without a real crime being committed. It’s similar to the “broken windows” excuse surrounding Stop and Frisk, where the policemen say they’re trying to uncover smaller crimes like drug possession or concealed weapons. Is there ever a situation in which “quality of life” policing would help rather than hinder everyone involved?

It’s not a surprise to me that the Oxfam study revealed an increase in the likelihood of the wealthy controlling half of the global wealth. For one, we live in an increasingly global world in which country lines blur in the realm of economics; for two, the disparity between the upper and lower class is ever-increasing and the difference in wages is dramatic. It reminds me of the semi-crazed assertion that thirteen families control the world through money power that, though a bit conspiratorial for my taste, holds more weight than I’d like to admit. The issue brought up in all of these posts is that of the large disparity between the wealth of the rich and that of the poor, and unfortunately none seem to present a viable option for eradicating this. As “The Party of Wall Street Meets Its Nemesis” puts it: “The struggle is global as well as local in nature.” Is there a way to battle and shrink this wage gap on a local scale that will then affect on a larger one?

The article this week touched upon a very important concept involved in community planning: the prospect of community land. Not only does proper utilization of community land jump start the economic worth of the area in question (for example, placing a park in the neighborhood), it also promotes a sense of unity between the residents. As put in the reading, “Community planning can strengthen community land as a basic element in building a sense of place and showing that place matters” (21); when used for communal use, public land becomes an area in the neighborhood for interaction between people who wouldn’t have otherwise interacted. It’s also interesting that the article pointed out the very “modern North American tradition” (21) of using land only as a place to walk on rather than as a place of inherent importance. While I don’t think every plot of land in an urban environment should be viewed as an area with a soul, I do think it’s important to recognize that a good community park or something of the sort can easily become a “living room” of sorts for the residents in the area. If people can go to a place to feel comfortable and united with others, they will project these feelings onto those others. I suppose the major question left by this mention is that of safety. While parks and other public areas promote community and a sense of belonging, they also can sometimes give rise to delinquent behavior; how, if in any way, can this be prevented?

I’m so angry. I’m just so angry at the way people were treated after Katrina and that I’m only finding out about it just now. Reading this week’s articles, it feels like Hurricane Katrina was a scapegoat for the plans already in motion to make a “new” New Orleans, one that pushes out lower-income families and minorities to make room for people of greater wealth. Police brutality is always a problem for those in the lower-income bracket, particularly for people of color, and so it’s hardly a surprise that verbal and physical abuse were employed, as well as unfair arrests. I’ve said this before in response to some readings, but it’s important not to forget that human beings are just that: human. While it may be more economically feasible to drive out poorer people, it’s not eradicating the problem. It does make me wonder, though: do y’all think the public housing would have been destroyed if Katrina hadn’t happened? Because I’m starting to think it would.

Upon reading the statistics presented in PlaNYC, I’m really interested to see what the proposed fixes are to eradicate the threat of climate change. Unfortunately, people would need to radically change themselves and their actions – going above and beyond just participating in a march. A digression: it reminds me of the people who hop on board of the next bandwagon without taking the time to fully understand it. These same individuals who rail against global warming are later going to go home to the lights they forgot to turn off and the plastic in most things we all earn – this same plastic with a carbon footprint of about 6 kg CO2 per kg of plastic. Global warming is a huge problem; I’m not denying it. However, there is much confusion over the best ways to go about fixing it. It’s frustrating that PlaNYC doesn’t even touch upon what is now possibly the best bet for alleviating the problems of climate change: geoengineering.

To be honest, I feel like an idiot for not knowing too much about the riots in Tompkins Square. Upon reading that first article, I found myself shocked. First, the fact that officers could be so brutal and get away with it is disconcerting (“largely on the evidence of a four-hour videotape made by local video artist Clayton Patterson, seventeen officers were cited for “misconduct.” Six officers were eventually indicted but none was ever convicted” (4)); moreover, it seems that these evictees were left only with each other. It’s interesting to see that instead of attacking one another, they loosely organized into a coalition and “took” the park. I doubt this kind of action would take place today; though people don’t always recognize that the homeless are human beings, there are more available options for evictees and the like. Now we just have to wonder: these homeless were made homeless because of the effects of gentrification; even though more options are now available to the homeless, should now efforts be focused toward the anti-gentrification movements? Is providing homeless shelters but no guarantee of stable housing where these people had been previously living just a solution for the symptom of a much bigger problem?