The state of homelessness in the United States is ridiculous, and while Kleniewski seems hopeful about finding a solution, I, for one, am not. The root causes of homelessness in the US are not being addressed, and I do not have faith enough in the collaborative powers of Congress to address them at present. Kleniewski acknowledges this, and points out that to prevent homelessness in the future we need, in essence, to revamp our social welfare system. This is imperative, but will Congress (which ultimately has the power over social policy) be able to do such a thing? I personally don’t think so, especially because income inequality is entrenched in our current system, and will take massive collaboration to remedy. But something needs to be done; real effort needs to be made. The way we treat the neediest people in this country is, to me, disgusting, as illustrated by Frazier’s portrait of New York homelessness. So, the logical solution seems to be mass action: the collaboration of citizens. Congress can’t ignore the unanimity of the people, can it? After all, income inequality affects far more than just homelessness. What should we do?

All three of the readings give a comprehensive overview of the situation of homelessness in New York City. In “Criminalizing Homelessness” and “The Homeless,” we get a clear picture of how most cities treat homelessness and some of the possible causes for the increase in homelessness since the 1970s. “Banking on Vacancy” offers a possible solution to the problem- stopping warehousing thereby increasing affordable housing- and “Hidden City” gives a more hands-on account about the shelter system in New York City.

While reading “Hidden City,” I decided to look up each of the shelters mentioned to get a better idea of what the conditions were like. Interestingly enough, most of the people in the pictures were African American. As in Black Corona, the homeless population is mostly made up of black people, most likely due to institutionalized discrimination. Inside the shelters were mostly decrepit looking, and one even looked like the walls were falling apart.

It was also interesting to read about the people’s comments about shelter life. Most dread staying in a shelter while others would rather receive money to get their own apartment. So, the question is: Why doesn’t the government listen and find a way to stop warehousing and give these people a way to earn money for affordable apartment rent?

In Kleniewski’s “Homelessness,” the issue of austere treatment of the homeless is addressed. Kleniewski points out that the homeless are a diverse group of people. I think this is an important point to address because there is often a stigma that all homeless people are where they are for the same reasons or all belong to a certain demographic. Kleniewski also states that though many homeless people may have faced similar situations that lead to their homelessness, it is important to realize that this group is very heterogeneous. Therefore, a number of different measures should be taken to address the problem of taking care of our homeless population. Possible solutions include raising the minimum wage, providing more affordable housing and providing more services for low income families (like healthcare and childcare).

In Frazier’s “Hidden City,” Frazier writes that there have been more homeless people in New York City in recent years than before. People who are part of the mainstream middle class do not realize this, because they cannot see it. This may be due to reasons stated in the above mentioned article: more stringent policing of anti-vagrancy laws and reduction of public benefits that would otherwise keep these people in homes.

Question: Other than top-down measures, are there any other alternative (say, grass-roots-type) measures we can take to educate the public about stereotypes about homeless people in order to try and influence policies made?

“Theoretical Perspectives on the City” discusses Emile Durkheim and how he viewed the rapid change from rural to urban society life of Europe during that time. Durkheim had a very interesting theory about traditional small communities (gemeinschaft) and the modern urban society (gesellschaft). He said that the people of these small communities were equal in many ways; they had similar jobs, the same religion, same global view, and everyone is close to or related to one another. This creates a sense of community, and bond between the people of the neighborhood. This can directly to apply to NYC neighborhoods because it truly explains the development of small communities, like “Little Italy” or “Chinatown.” These neighborhoods are created and thrive because the people are so similar, in ways of their religion, worldview, and sometimes occupations. That sense of similarity helps them to expand and interact within their neighborhood, without having to leave the comfort that familiarity brings. However, neighborhoods with a mix of different type of people and occupations also have a reason to thrive; because they have different occupations, they depend on one another out of necessity. This is a theory that could explain the other neighborhoods of mixed occupations throughout the city.

So, upfront: I’ve experienced homelessness; I was homeless for about three (four?) months over the summer between my junior and senior years of high school. Homelessness, for that reason and more, is an issue that hits fairly close to home for me. These readings, in that respect, I found to be really good for understanding homelessness: in the Klienewski, we get the harsh, governmental angle on the problem; in the Picture the Homeless article we get possible solutions; and in Hidden City we get a human portrait. Especially as shown by Hidden City and the video we watched on Tuesday, I think the humanizing aspect of talking about homelessness is incredibly important—most homeless people obviously aren’t such by choice, it’s because of forces (sometimes Kafkaesque ones, like those happening to Christina in Hidden City) outside of their control. Most of the reason homelessness is such a problem, from my point of view, is because of failures of empathy—homeless are people, in need of help, that’s all. So maybe me question is, how do you teach empathy?

As food for thought, here’s this cool awareness campaign run by Canada’s Homeless Youth organization:

A very interesting point brought up by the New Yorker article, “Hidden City,” was the repeated assertion that it costs more to find temporary housing for the homeless through a flawed system than it would cost to directly pay the homeless individual. As mentioned by one lady in an interview, welfare pays, “three thousand four hundred and forty-four dollars! Every month! Give me nine hundred dollars of that every month and I’ll find me and my kids an apartment, I promise you” (Frazier). While I agree that often the system for housing the homeless is more expensive (in the long run) than offering affordable housing and always more expensive than giving dividends with which to pay for housing, there is an overlooked problem of where that money may go. For instance, if there is somebody who is homeless because of a chemical addiction or alcoholism, the money he or she receives will not necessarily go towards finding affordable housing. However, if there is found a way around this issue – perhaps through a screening and medical examination – the idea of giving money straight to the individual and cutting out the middlemen of PATH and other services is one worth pursuing. What ways, if any, offer a practical possible solution in this vein?

I was particularly taken by the second article, as it detailed the lack of sympathy I often take issue with when reading about the intricacies of black poverty. The de-politicization of struggles inherent in “inner city” communities (mentioned on page 6) is perhaps the biggest obstacle to overcome when attempting to better the areas through official action. Often, this mentality fails to view the state of poverty with any empathy and instead dismisses it. By arguing that the disparate quality of life between “mainstream America” and the “inner city” is due to “a breakdown of family values and structure” (6), rather than any overarching inequalities, allows for those making said accusations to both: vilify the people stuck in this impoverished cycle; and remove themselves from the moral obligation of helping. If black poverty is seen as a fault of the people involved, it becomes infinitely easier to aver that there’s nothing an outsider can do, or should do. Obviously the creation of policy cannot be ruled by emotion, but how much – if any – focus should be placed on empathy?

Both of the readings discussed immigration and urbanization of city life. By analyzing the research conducted and results found by sociologists from Theoretical Perspectives on the City we are able to better understand how urban society functions. I agree with Tonnes that rural communities are more closer and more interdependent since every individual’s job contributed to the community. However, even though urban cities are more independent in a way we still depend on each other in order for society to function properly. The black corona reading gave an insight on race and equality and how it is related to power. In adiittion, that reading related poverty to crime in the “black ghetto.” Their reasoning for acting out is to be heard, does that justify crime? This article made me wonder if we will ever be truly equal? Because even today we are still separated by class and the economy. Are we really equal and free or obliviously ruled by the government. I also found the map within that reading useful in visualizing the location. Overall, what actually makes us a community, our similarities or the way we influence each other and function as one society?

During my first year at Brooklyn College, I lived in the off campus dormitories located in Flatbush, Brooklyn. Coming from a very homogeneous neighborhood in Staten Island, one could say I experienced a bit of culture shock. I had been immersed in an inner-city area just like the ones described in Black Corona. I was completely immersed in “ghetto culture” for the very first time. Before moving to the area I had always thought about African American communities in a very binary way: some were assimilated into main stream culture and others were a part of ghetto culture. I never stopped to think about the fact that ghetto culture might have arisen from political and socioeconomic status. After a few months of living in Flatbush, I began to realize that maybe my neghbors acted the way they did because of their financial situation. It was interesting to see the parallels that I could draw between Flatbush and the neighborhoods that were being described in Black Corona. Both myself and Jacob Govan can give similar causes for ghetto culture just by living in an inner-city area (he much more than myself). This shows that ghetto culture is not a product of its people, but of their circumstance.

Question: Would inner-city areas improve if ghetto culture were renounced completely, or would it be detrimental to eradicate an entre culture without keeping some of its positive aspects?

“Cities, Change and Conflict: A Political Economy of Urban Life” is an appropriate, yet dull, introduction to the paradigms of urban ecology and urban political economy. The work, which summarizes the work of several famous twentieth century philosophers, comes off as rushed and patronizing.  The piece reads like a textbook, with very information-dense paragraphs. As such, the work did not hold my attention very well throughout.As a reader, I would have appreciated more of the author’s commentary and analysis scattered throughout.

Opening “Black Corona: Race and the Politics of Place in an Urban Community” with the story of a long-time Corona resident gave me the impression that the piece was based on ethnographic fieldwork. Reading further, the text gives way to straightforward arguments (I, personally, agree with) supported by valid and credible sources. The material was not lacking any supplementary information. However, having only limited access to the work, I am unable to appreciate the extent of Gregory’s research, which is elaborated on in later chapters.

Question: Which model, Hoyt’s sector model, Burgess’s concentric zone model or Harris and Ullman’s multiple nuclei model, best fits New York City?