This article truly makes Los Angeles look like a horrible place, determined to protect their wealth and status at all costs, even if that means destroying the last truly public spaces in exchange for security-heavy destinations, banking on the draw of exclusivity. While I don’t doubt that LA (and probably other large American cities) are seeing a turn towards the polarization of any person or thing not deemed socially “elite” (I.e. minorities, the poor), I can’t help but question the extremity of the article, which depicts the city as a sort of militaristic city of a dystopian future. Regardless, the privatization of public space is a concerning issue, especially as income gaps continue to widen nationwide. This issue particularly effects the homeless, who are no longer allowed in more and more areas of the city. Rather than focusing on finding housing for the homeless of the city, they are focusing on ways to keep them out of “luxury” areas, only further deepening class divides.

I have a fundamental problem with the concept of Broken Window Policing, the same issue that has plagued the stop-and-frisk policy since its conception. Namely, that all crimes are equally, and that all breaches of morality are equally devastating. The idea behind Broken Windows policing is that people who commit minor crimes are equally as likely to commit major crimes, and therefore putting them behind bars after a minor crime will prevent major crimes. I believe that this policy ignores the inherent complexity of people. I don’t believe it naive to claim that there is a very solid moral divide between say, jumping the turnstiles, and rape. The assumption that someone would commit a minor crime out of desperation or immediate need would just as likely say, kill, is casting a universal stereotype that condemns innocent people to a potentially very difficult life. How can we control crime without instilling a policing system based upon gross assumptions or racial stereotypes?

Income inequality is a huge problem in America. Part of the reason why it has become such a huge problem is because money is power. Those few very wealthy, though a small percentage of Americans, are not willing to give up their money or their power for the sake of the common good. And paradoxically, they have the wealth and power to be able to not give up their wealth power.

I approach this topic with a pessimistic view. Occupy Wall Street was a largely unsuccessful movement because it the root of the problem is our entire economic system, wherein the collection of wealth is the ultimate goal. Though admirable, social and political protests can do little to tackle this dilemma that we have created for ourselves.

What we need is political action, reverse Reganomics. Tax the wealthy and increase the middle, working, and lower classes. Rather than protests, our energy would be put to better use in campaigning and voting for those who could put real policy into action. I simply ask why so little has yet been done to address this current crisis.

Not to sound bitter or pessimistic or anything, but institutionalized racism has been a part of the American government since its founding. It’s terrible and inhumane, but it is no longer surprising. The egregious mistreatment of low income and black residents after Hurricane Katrina is therefore also not surprising, especially after watching Land of Opportunity, which touched upon the topic of public housing destruction justified by a natural disaster. Natural disasters are often thought of as levelers and unifiers. They do not discriminate what they destroy, and they bring communities together in the aftermath. Unfortunately, the wealth that is destroyed by a natural disaster can quickly be rebuilt,the housing and necessities of the poor cannot. Communities band together to rebuild those communities that are beloved, and low income housing is often not, save for those who live there.

Government always favors those who can pay. So given the chance to rebuild low-income, predominately black areas as middle-high income, whiter neighborhoods, they absolutely will.

I expect government to act in accordance to money, but I question why the public was never made away of these conditions in the post-Katrina headlines. Clearly people are upset by these actions, perhaps if more of these occurrences were widely known, racial and class discrimination would be less widely spread.

Climate change, and the natural disasters that are increasing in frequency and intensity due to it, are biggest and most frightening challenges facing our modern society. It is also undeniable that the government has taken very few steps in fighting climate change. The conservative Bush administration particularly saw policies that ignored Global Warming and it’s disastrous effects. Namely, Hurricane Katrina, which destroyed Louisiana, a state that is still in recovery. Certainly natural disasters cannot be blamed on the administration- they are called natural disasters for a reason- but the administration must be blamed for it’s failure to even acknowledge the climate crisis and it’s causes. Without this recognition, we cannot begin to take steps towards a solution.

And what solutions is that anyway? We don’t have one. The public is clear in it’s demand for government action on climate change, but the government has yet to set forth a viable and effective solution, and with our current congressional gridlock- it may still be a while.

New York City is dominated by a capitalistic economic system. It is the motivating factor of most, if not all, of the building developments. It only follows then that low-income housing will not be built in the numbers that they should be. Rather, companies will build housing for middle to high income residents- regardless of the low income families then displaced from their homes. Neo-liberalist subsidizing of housing would certainly ease the housing crisis, but it is simply not a viable action in a city so dominated by capitalistic landlords and housing developers. As we’ve already seen, homeless shelters, which are common throughout the city and which do offer living situations to the poor, are not a particularly helpful solution. Ideally, more housing would increase supply, thereby driving prices downward, but it has become clear that simply building new housing is not an effective plan to combat the housing crisis as long as a capitalistic market continues to cater to the wealthy. Can simply putting pressure on building developers to build low-income living really ease the housing problem?

All three of this week’s readings deal with the homelessness problem facing New York City. I was surprised to find that homelessness in the city has reached startlingly high numbers, primarily because it is simply not a topic currently in public discussion. Of course, the astronomical costs of NYC rent is astonishing, and there is even talk of gentrification and its myriad destructive effects (i.e. homelessness), but the numbers and conditions of the New York City homeless is not being properly addressed.

As always, this issue is not being solved or approached effectively due to the misuse of government funds. The fact is that we live in a capitalist society, wherein the livelihood of many is often sacrificed for the profits of a few. This is where many admirable efforts often fail- force of will and moral righteousness can seldom withstand political machines that stand to gain money or support. What are some previous examples of grassroots movements that have overcome political corruption? What incentives can be offered to landlords to make opening vacant properties worthwhile?