Final Blog Posting for This Semester

Policy Recommendations:

As stated previously in this Blog, the two “urban” issues that I planned to cover this semester was urban/suburban planning, its effects on inner-city residents, and how legislation and public policies have a negative effect on “socially excluded groups” such as the poor and individuals of minority status.
The first government policy concerns the use of “eminent domain” to seize private property for “public use”. Initially this provision under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution required any use of eminent domain to be strictly for the public good. For example, a railroad station, hospital, or a school. However, in 1954 in Berman vs. Parker the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a private concern to build a department store on privately owned property and this precedent setting case opened the door to the use of eminent domain for private instead of public concerns. Most recently in a highly publicized case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut (2005) ruled in favor of a private concern to create a so-called “economic redevelopment project” and this further eroded the definition of “public use”.
The problem for many urban areas with this type of “eminent domain” usage is that low-income, minority residents are the ones who are typically displaced in favor of corporations or wealthy individuals. As we have seen over and over again this semester, many inner-city neighborhoods do not have the social, economic, or the political power needed to compete with major corporations to protect their civil rights.
In my opinion, it would be perfectly acceptable if “eminent domain” was used to create living-wage employment opportunities for these residents but this is not typically the case. For example, creating another Wal-Mart will not provide the type of jobs that can lift an urban neighborhood out of poverty. It will benefit a few upper management people who probably will not reside within the inner-city.
Another type of policy that tends to have negative consequences for urban residents is “recapitalization.” The theory is that by reducing taxes on corporations and decreasing government regulations on businesses that more employment opportunities in the private sector will occur. However, this lowering of corporate taxes and regulations has had just the opposite affect for many inner-cities. As more American based industries and corporations move to other countries in search of slave-waged labor and lower construction costs, this de-regulation of American businesses has only exacerbated the plight of many urban areas. N.A.F.T.A. (North American Free Trade Alliance) alone cost this country several million industrial living-waged jobs. As for lowering or doing away with corporate taxes in order to attract these business to move to your city this policy has also had a negative impact on urban areas. Many corporations when moving to a new area bring with them most of their upper management and high-waged laborers. Typically, the initial construction and service oriented employment are the only benefits to a local community. Without the tax revenues to support the urban infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, etc.) these corporations actually use more local services without providing needed financial resources to maintain them. In addition many corporations leave one city for another when their tax breaks expire.
With these types of public policies obviously of little help in solving the rampant poverty, homelessness, and loss of middle-class employment opportunities in many urban areas, I find that the creation of “Community Development Corporations” as a viable alternative (pg. 280).
With the goal of this type of corporate entity to provide employment, services, and reinvestment within the local community they seem to offer the greatest hope in alleviating inner-city poverty. In my opinion, most privately owned corporations have little concern for developing and maintain urban infrastructures. Profit is the main concern for these entities.
A community based organization will have the best interests of the local community as its primary function. If corporate management and their families actually live in the urban area where their businesses are located and not in some far off suburbia, they will have a personal stake in the growth and development of these areas. By investing in local residents and developing their economic, social, and cultural capital this type of community based concern seem to offer the best chance of overcoming the severe poverty that is associated with many inner-cities throughout America.
Final Comment: I was unaware of the existence of Community Based Corporations until our readings this semester. After my pursuit for higher learning and my quest for a college degree are accomplished, I will either actively search for or look into creating such an organization. It is obvious that our government is not going to solve the problems that we face here in America. Both parties talk a lot about solving social issues but little in the way of actual results comes from their bantering. I guess the bottom line is that if you want something done, you better do it yourself! Have a great summer!
Sincerely as always, Mark