Question: why even allow such a board—the NYCHA’s governing board— to be considered an “independent ‘paragovernmental entity’”? Anyone can foresee that allowing such an institution to work without a “check and balance” system could lead to a corrupt and totalitarian entity. And something similar is happening with the New York Housing Authority, which doesn’t surprise me if they don’t have to “comply with the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure”. I do agree with the three main changes that must occur in order to start solving the problem. But again, a mandatory audit, an increased budget and the change of ‘paragovernmental’ status, should only be the beginning of a larger plan. Another part of this recovery project should include a raise in salaries to make “affordable housing” even more “affordable”. Eventually, this could allow people to, not only be able to rent a house or an apartment, but also own one and still be able to safe money for retirement. But if nothing gets done at this point, then the living conditions of thousands of New Yorkers is only going to keep getting worse.

For me, it would only be appropriate to begin my response by asking a pending question, what’s keeping cities from creating more programs that could benefit those who are currently unable to pay for a home. Just like expressed in the reading, “communities have the choice of turning the homeless into criminals or attempting to address homelessness as a community problem”, why can’t we do the latter, if it only takes charging 1% tax on restaurant meals to raise $6 million a year to provide supportive services for the homeless. Little changes like that can be made to have a greater impact in the end. I think one major factor that can perhaps change the way things are being dealt with is by changing out way of thinking about the problem. As I was reading the part that describes the way officials are criminalizing these people, I had to stop and think—what if the legislators or the officials, the people that propose and enforce the different “types of approaches”, put themselves in the shoes of those that have nothing, but that are willing to escape their misery? Would things be different then? Would our mentality as a society be altered at all? But, again, the problem is a lot more complex than that…

I must admit that my expertise in the subject isn’t significant enough to debate the specifics described in the article. I must also admit, however, that I have taken a few history courses and they seem to coincide with what was discussed in “Theoretical Perspectives on the city”. What I truly enjoyed about the article was the history behind the compilation of knowledge that all became known as the “political economy paradigm”. One of the things I love about science is that there’s always room for new possibilities, and this article made me think of this “paradigm” as a concept being explored through the sciences. When these “scientists”/researchers ran out of questions to explore within the original paradigm they had developed with the help of The Chicago School, they were willing explore new horizons through the “political economy paradigm”. I agree when the author explained that new paradigms had to be created because, for example, what shapes society isn’t just competition for land or “natural laws”, in other words, things aren’t that simple. Which is why it was super interesting to see how the combination of paradigms created a more promising and stable field of study. Also, throughout the article, I constantly saw innovative ideas that helped explain many things around us.

Question: Which “belief” do you identify with the most? What’s one fact/idea that struck you the most while reading?