Reaction 1

Looking at Fredericksburg

In order to explain the Fredericksburg comprehensive plan we must first take a look at the key players involved with the plans creation.  In the plan, it lists city council members, city administration and staff, the planning commission, and finally consultants. To me, consultants seemed vague so upon further Google searching of their names revealed that “Clarion Associates” was basically a collection of urban planners, real estate agents, lawyers, and environmental assessors. The kicker here is that their closest office is in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (“Our Team”). Who are these people? What do they know about Fredericksburg?

This is an issue as it is relatable to Driven from New Orleans. It is plain to see that the city and mayoral office don’t always have an incentive to listen to residents. This often leads to the creation of a plan that ignores neighborhoods issues, rather than working to solve them. Another example of a city plan that ignored the residents was “Holding Ground” though this movie presented a very different approach. It is a video that follows the revitalization process of the Dudley Street neighborhood in Boston. The creation of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative or DSNI presented a plan by the residents for the residents. This board of elected city residents was able to change the city’s mind and implemented their “bottom up” plans.

I decided to explore the vision of Fredericksburg, moving past the lack of clarity in each member’s role in the Fredericksburg plan’s creation. To quote the comprehensive plan directly: “Since the City’s founding in 1728, the citizens of Fredericksburg have overcome many challenges, created the character of the City, and ensured its extraordinary role in our Nation’s history. During our stewardship of this great City, we resolve to build on this heritage and add our mark on the City’s history.” (“Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan”) This raises questions such as: what challenges have the citizens overcome? In what ways were the challenges combated? What is the character of the city? Who decided this definition? What is considered extraordinary? And how did we attain that? And who is adding their mark to the city? These questions are raised at first glance of the plan. The vision also includes specific goals of the city council. I am very happy to report that of the five goals listed, civic involvement was number four of five.

The remaining goals include an emphasis on history, beauty, safety, culture, and diversity. The plan to achieve the goals is more specifically outlined in the subsequent pages, though often does not mention resident participation. Looking to the examples discussed in class, it is a weakness of the Fredericksburg plan to ignore residents while looking to solve their problems and improve their city.

Works Cited

1. Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan. (2007, September 25). Retrieved October 19, 2015.
2. Our Team. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2015.

Lauren Wood

Reaction Paper 1

October 14, 2015

Community Plan Analysis

Living in Williamsburg for almost all of my childhood I was able to see first hand some of the strengths and weaknesses that the Williamsburg James City County school board had to offer for my communities education. Growing up around this situation I could always hear parents complaining about things along the lines of school districting and some of the stuff that teachers taught us in the classroom, for example, sex ed. After doing some more research on the Williamsburg James City County (WJCC) school system I was able to point out some strengths and weaknesses on my own.

The strategic plan for WJCC schools includes core values like collaboration, individuality, and accountability. WJCC’s mission is to insure that each and every student is provided with knowledge, skills to be a lifelong learner, communicate, think critically, work productively, and contribute positively to the lives of others. WJCC is committed to providing many different programs to fit the different range of student’s interests and needs as they grow academically, emotionally and socially. WJCC also has listed five school wide priorities, which are High Student Achievement for 21^st century, safe, secure, and welcoming environment for students, rewarding experience for professionals, trust and authentic partnerships with families and the broader community, and accountable and trusted leadership.

WJCC’s strategic plan for the children of Williamsburg has multiple strengths such as making sure all students get the same amount of attention from the teachers. WJCC has a motto that is “No Child Is Left Behind” and with first hand experience I can say that this is very true for the school system. Another strength that this strategic plan has to offer is that teachers develop flexible programs to make sure they fit the needs of the wide range of different learners throughout the classroom. Another strength that Williamsburg James City County Plan shows is the goal of getting involved with student’s parents and even more importantly, the rest of the community. I have a strong belief in getting involved with the community because children are able to learn life long skills that they will be able to take with them for the rest of their lives. The school board does a good job with creating reachable goals for the rest of the school system.

Along with strengths always come a few weaknesses. One of the weaknesses I have identified in the Williamsburg James City County school plan is the way they district the schools. This has been a big concern for the past few years for a couple of different reasons. The first problem being that many of the schools around the district are pretty new, so of course parents get frustrated when their own child is stuck at one of the older schools with older technology and other equipment. Another reason this is a weakness is because the wealthier neighborhoods around the area are usually districted to the same school, which means the less fortunate kids are put into a different school. WJCC needs to do a better job at districting the schools so that there is a more balanced population of children. Another weakness I found in this plan is the lack of bus drivers for transportation. In the recent news, there have been complaints on the subject of not enough bus drivers to get the children to school. How are these students supposed to get to school if their parents have to go to work early in the morning and aren’t able to drop them off? Something needs to be done about this issue because this could start really affecting a child’s attendance to school.

Williamsburg James City County strategic plan is well written one. Although it has some weaknesses, it has many strengths that out way the negatives. WJCC has a good mission and many achievable goals for the future.

Source

http://wjccschools.org

This is an editorial about the poverty and housing crisis that has been growing in my backyard. I grew up in the city of Winchester knowing poverty was present, but not knowing really how present it was. I was appalled by what I found and saddened to know that the people that have been affected are some of the very people who have provided my life with value and memory. Gentrification–too close to home.

Gentrification in my backyard

Plan Summary

The Old Manchester Neighborhood is a very desirable neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia as it has rich historic roots, is directly south of downtown, and has a large sense of community. With these things said, it is surprising that the area has been declining for decades. There are many vacant homes and lots, “husband-wife families” have been declining, 80% of residents are considered low-income, and 69% of residents are below the poverty line. The city decided something had to be done about this. The primary goal of the city is to encourage mixed-use development while preserving the historic character. There is a mixture of rehabilitation and redevelopment strategies. The goal is to create an urban environmental where people can live, work, shop, and recreate. Demographics from 1980-1990 were used to establish this plan. This analysis will mainly focus on housing using background from what we have learned about and discussed in class.

Strengths of the Plan

This plan seems to have many strengths. The city of Richmond plans on providing a range of housing types to provide opportunities for people of all incomes. This is very important because it makes it possible for people of all different backgrounds to live in the neighborhood. There will be places for lower-income and higher-income and this makes the neighborhood very inclusive. The plan also states that they will displace as few residents as possible and provide new homes for displaced residents within Old Manchester. Unlike other cities that we’ve learned about, Richmond has actually prepared and has a plan for the residents. The residents are more likely to go along with this plan knowing that they will have a place to return to. It was also stated that the city will develop infill housing where there are gaps in the neighborhood. When there are vacant lots or vacant homes, there is a higher chance of crime. Also, as we saw in Boston, the vacant lots can become sites for garbage dumping which is a health hazard. By making it a priority to infill these vacant lots and homes, it makes the community a much safer place. They also stated that they will balance economic development activity with the needs of the residential community. I think it is very important that they value both of these so highly. From the statistics stated before, the area needs economic development, but if that takes priority to the residents severe problems will arise.

Weaknesses of the Plan

There were not many weaknesses to this plan. One thing that did stand out to me, though, was that they plan on developing Old Manchester as a community conducive to single-family residential land uses. From the existing conditions provided in the plan, I feel like this would not be the best solution for the community. It was stated that most of the units were multi-family (36%), following that two-family units (33%), and then single-family units (31%). Also, the number of families has been declining. It does not make much sense for a single person or a couple to live in a single-family home, but more likely a multi-family unit.

Conclusion

Overall the Old Manchester Neighborhood Plan seems like a great plan that respects the community that lives there and wants to keep them happy while also improving the area. They plan on developing economically but not so much to impact the residents negatively. Their plan to create a majority of single-family residential land uses is questionable, but positively they focus on maintaining affordability, providing housing for all income levels, displacing as few residents as possible, and developing infill where there are gaps or vacancies. Although the plan sounds good on paper, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in real life.

Works Cited

Lynchburg City is located in the center of the state of Virginia. The city is settled directly above the James River. It is a city whose downtown blocks have had a facelift in the last 15 years. In 2000, downtown Lynchburg was a place of a pawn shop or two, a struggling restaurant here and there, an old YMCA, a welcome center and a rehabilitation center, and a sometimes-used community market. It was not a hopping small town like many other historic small towns on the east coast. In fact, it was a place with little traffic and sketchy parking garages that most residents of the surrounding counties only went to when they received a traffic ticket within city limits or to make a deposit at the Bank of the James. The only residents that lived in downtown Lynchburg lived in housing developments on the farthest edge from the riverfront in apartment complexes settled between the the police department and public middle school. There were incredibly few single family homes.

In 2000 a Downtown & Riverfront Master Plan was drawn up. This plan expressed all of the projects, intended projects, and dreams for the riverfront blocks of downtown Lynchburg. Within the whole comprehensive plan, there are a number of projects that developers created. I have chosen to focus on the Downtown & Riverfront Master Plan for multiple reasons. I grew up in this city and lived about two miles from the area of focus. I both witnessed and experienced the changes that happened in this city. There are restaurants downtown that myself and other family members worked in for years, a pawn shop that my aunt managed, coffee shops and bars that my father’s band has played in, and a YMCA that my mother’s volleyball team practiced in. Also, there are clear, tangible changes that stemmed directly from this plan, and some ideas in the plan that did not make the cut.

In this short essay, I would like to use this plan to examine some of the private and public projects that were proposed in 2000; I am going to analyze who was invested and who would benefit from these projects. I will draw some comparisons to the Brooklyn Matters video we watched in class as well as draw some ideas and comparisons from Bartley’s Green Development Zones.

Public Projects

One public project that gain much attention in the community was the development of the Riverview Artist Lofts. Essentially, the Riverview Art Space, a gallery in a renovated historic building for local artists to display and sell their work, was equipped with 36 loft apartments for those artists to be able to live where they worked and displayed their work. Still sound like a public or non-profit project? When this was drafted in the plan, it already had a government grant but still needed $4.5 million to be fully funded. It also already had deposits from artists to save their loft before the lofts were even renovated. Who was invested? Developers, artists, and local, wealthy investors to “close the gap via additional private investment.” So government money for housing was being spent on lofts specified for artists who would rent the apartments and gallery space. Who had power? The developers and private investors. Who would benefit from this projects? The developers, private investors, the 36 artists who got their deposits in soon enough, and any retail places nearby that needed a little extra foot traffic of gallery-goers. In this instance in Lynchburg, government money was used on multipurpose housing to house a very small and select group of individuals. In Brooklyn Matters, Ratner and his developers and investors proposed public “affordable” housing for people across classes to be able to afford, arguably a better proposed use of money, regardless of the outcome. The development did however supply jobs for artists in the area, a space for art events, and more foot traffic in an area with other local businesses.

A few other public projects in this plan were Amazement Square, a children’s museum, and the Community Market. Both projects have successfully benefited the intended beneficiaries, supplied jobs to the community, both in renovation and after opening, and drawn more of the surrounding community downtown.

Private Projects

Multiple private housing projects were also proposed in this 2000 plan. Because of the quantity historic industrial buildings in the blocks of riverfront Lynchburg, many private developers caught the same idea to transform these spaces into loft apartments. On Jefferson St., 12th St., 5th St. and Court St., private investors proposed housing plans. On Jefferson St. alone, just a few hundred yards from the restaurant I worked in for 3 years, two loft apartment buildings have opened, one in May of 2014, one within the last year. Between these two, there were 281 new units available downtown. Midpoint in particular is in fact managed a team of realtors and property managers that were already Lynchburg residents. Both projects provided local construction companies with jobs. Midpoint Apartments has a restaurant space on the first floor that has remained unoccupied but is between three popular restaurants and is neighbor to an outdoor stage used for festivals and other riverfront events. The park that has developed across from these lofts transformed from an unlit, empty, green space parallel to the train tracks into a lit, landscaped, family park with a modern walk-through style fountain and path connecting two riverside bike trails. The intention of developing both the lofts and park simultaneously was not only to improve the view and heighten property values, but also to provide the park and residents an “eyes on the park” idea to improve the feeling of safety and community unity along Jefferson St. Who was invested? Private investors, local wealthy residents that wanted shares, and potential new retail owners; new residents in expensive buildings meant customers in walking distance. Who would benefit? Local businesses (construction companies, restaurants, retail, museums and galleries, community events), 281 upper-middle class renters, and developers.

Other private projects in downtown Lynchburg included a Bluff-Walk center (think NYC’s High Line on a much smaller scale), and, proposed but never completed, an ice rink and a multi-screen cinema.

How Do We Categorize Lynchburg’s Growth and Development?

I do not think that Lynchburg falls into the category of a community growth machine. Bartley says that a community growth machine “harnesses the power and material momentum of an industrial complex but… applies it to meet the infrastructure and employment needs of low-income neighborhoods.” The infrastructure needs of the low-income neighborhoods were not expensive and limited housing, four star restaurants, and gallery and museum space. Though these elements of the development did supply some employment opportunities, they did not create well-paying, career opportunities.  Bartley laid out some of the objectives that PUSH aimed for as a type of growth machine. Though the development of riverfront/downtown Lynchburg did execute some of these objectives, other objectives that implemented benefits for the entire community, regardless of class, were not met. Bartley’s ideas of promoting triple bottom line principles of enhancing environment, equity, and economy and identifying, training, and employing community leaders were not intentions or outcomes of Lynchburg’s development. Bartley identified the necessity to build on the community’s assets, but the development in Lynchburg was more about creating what they wanted to become the community’s assets. The development of downtown Lynchburg is a product of developers’ ideas of what the city needed and private investors’ that saw potential for the riverfront and for their own pockets. Though the project did create a more attractive and lively downtown within a mere 15 years. On a much smaller scale, and not as potentially catastrophic, this project could be seen as a reflection of Ratner’s approach to Brooklyn. I see Lynchburg as a place that was told what they needed and wanted, and received those things regardless of the actual needs of the community.

Bartley, Aaron. 2011. The Green Development Zone.

Brooklyn Matters 2007

Lynchburg Downtown and Riverfront Master Plan 2000.

Stafford County in Virginia has plans for Interstate 95 interchange on Courthouse Road. The current interchange was originally built in 1963 and may not be able to handle the increased flow of traffic and use according to VDOT. This interchange project is the intended solution, but funding has been cut significantly due to the state’s new prioritization program. The new program has several other projects on the list to improve transportation. Not only does Stafford County plan to advance I-95, but expanding VRE platforms at a couple stations, building a new commuter lot and improving intersections on U.S. 1 are a few of the top priorities. With these projects added to the list, the funding needs to be dispersed appropriately. The interchange plan originally had $185.4 million to work with and is now cut down to $149.9 million. Stafford elected officials were not pleased with the budget cut.

Due to the significant decrease in funds, the original design for the interchange had to be modified to a less expensive one. The concept is called a divergent diamond interchange which will be an unusual layout to Stafford County. According to VDOT, the adjusted layout will work just as well as the original design for much less cost. VDOT says there will be fewer congestion points, smoother flow of traffic and less time at red lights. Courthouse Road will also be realigned to accommodate the changes to the interstate and building new bridges has also been added to the plan. The tentative completion date is Spring of 2020.

The combination of these transportation projects certainly has some strengths and weaknesses. Interstate 95 in this area is known for the rush hour traffic jams and weekend congestion. People who commute to work experience the frustration of highway traffic daily. Realizing the difficulty in transportation and proactively creating this project to ease the flow of travel is a good move on the part of the Stafford officials. If the interchange pans out the way VDOT predicts, it’ll be beneficial for everyone in the area who travels to work or other obligations daily. Smoothing out the flow of traffic also helps prevent accidents. As part of what we’ve studied in class, both of the renovation projects in Brooklyn and Buffalo acknowledged that there was a problem in the community and action needed to be taken to revitalize those areas. Of course, this is the first step to any action plan, but identifying the issues at hand helps the plan move forward. Although the budget cut for the plan angered the officials, it turns out it may have been for the best. They are still able to use a design that satisfies the original goal without spending as much. The budget cut allows for other road and transportation projects to have to some leeway.

In the Brooklyn re-development plan, we saw that one person was in power and made many promises of benefits to the residents in that community. However, there was an underlying agenda and the people did not have much of a voice or opportunity to contribute their thoughts and opinions. In this transportation development plan, it seems that the people in Stafford County may not have been given the chance to speak of their reaction to the plan. Perhaps they may have other ideas for transportation projects or have noticed other areas that need a new design. In this case, the Stafford Board of Supervisors is in charge of making these decisions and voting on what projects to include in this prioritization program. There was no mention of a community meeting. There was only a gathering at Colonial Forge High School where residents could view details of the new plan only after the decisions were made by officials.

In any kind of community project, we’ve seen in class how detrimental it can be when residents are not included in the decisions of their town. Also, when the person in power is not truly representative or caring of the people, drastic decisions may be implemented that do not benefit the people. In the Stafford County interchange project, the new concept design definitely strives to aid the community in smooth travel, but giving the residents in the community a chance to address their concerns and even contribute their ideas is always a promising method.

Works Cited

Bartley, A. (2011). Building a “Community Growth Machine”. Social Policy, pp. 9-20.

Shenk, Scott. “Hearing Set for I-95 Interchange Project in Stafford.”Fredericksburg.com. N.p., 27 Sept. 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

Shenk, Scott. “Residents Get a Chance to See Updated Plans for I-95 Interchange Design on Courthouse Road.” Fredericksburg.com. N.p., 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

Shenk, Scott. “Stafford Picks Projects for Statewide Prioritization Program.” Fredericksburg.com. N.p., 19 Sept. 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.

Dominique Lopez-Piper

Dr. Martin

Case Study: Sports-Centered Urban Development 

The majority of neighborhood development initiatives we have focused on in class present their plans as being entirely based on satisfying the people within those communities. However, our discussions have made it quite clear that very few of those efforts are true to the motives they establish outwardly regarding helping great numbers of people struggling in the lower classes; instead, there is usually a money-making venture involved that works in favor of the already wealthy, elite few. In class, we spoke of this phenomenon occurring specifically in relation to sports-centered urban redevelopment under Bruce Ratner’s direction in Brooklyn, but the feigned charity doesn’t stop there. Timothy Chapin explains a similar reality of sports facilities aiming to yield economic recovery that takes place in Baltimore’s Camden Yards and Cleveland’s Gateway, but he focuses more on the impacts of these projects on their respective cities.

In Brooklyn Matters, Bruce Ratner—a real estate developer with the backing of the Empire State Development Corporation—plans to build a New York Nets basketball arena in Brooklyn to benefit his own interests and to make himself money; however, he presents the plan as one geared towards urban redevelopment that would help create jobs and excitement for the residents of that area. It all started when flyers were spread amongst low income residents with the grand promise of “Jobs, Housing, and Hoops” plastered all over them, along with a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). The CBA implied that the community’s input was being considered as valuable and that they were endorsing the project. While it may have sounded nice at first, below the surface were so many fabrications and inconsistencies that made it clear that Ratner had no idea what the people truly wanted and needed and was not going to take the time to find out.

Ratner’s next step was to buy out hundreds of local residents and tear down the perfectly decent buildings he had vacated that used to be their homes, to make space for what he deemed more important. Not only did Ratner disguise his selfish intentions entirely and mask them with charitable, hopeful words for the people, he also tried to tell them what they should want. Newsflash, Ratner: not every low-income African-American person wants a basketball stadium that they cannot even afford to watch a game in, because your project is actually making it harder for them to get reliable jobs and more expensive for them to continue living in their hometown. This situation is a clear example of sports-centered redevelopment that is supposedly centered around altruistically helping the local residents, when the only ones that really win out are the greedy manipulators at the top of the wealth and power food chain.

Similarly, Timothy Chapin explains that sports facilities as urban redevelopment tend to be poor investments, but he zeroes in on the direct impact they have on Baltimore and Cleveland more than anything. The article he wrote highlights the opportunities that come with the creation of sports stadiums, such as developing underused buildings, establishing new images for the areas in question, and catalyzing the redevelopment process created by the sports stadiums; however, these are not promised consequences, but rather increased chances for their potential fruition. These plans list their intentions as including the creation of better-paying jobs, economic growth at the metropolitan level, and the advancement of neighborhoods as a hole.

Brooklyn, Baltimore, and Cleveland all resemble each other in several ways when it comes to the social issues and phenomena that result from the creation of sports facilities. For example, while these projects supposedly create better jobs, each of the situations were actually found to yield low-paying service sector jobs and perhaps even have a negative impact on real income per capita. Additionally, Cleveland’s Gateway Project was listed as one that set out to energize the city, kind of like the creation of the indoor lounge space at the stadium in Brooklyn. Even the language used is very similar, especially with the use of the word “blighted.” While Brooklyn was said to look blighted after Ratner forced residents out of their homes and left the buildings abandoned, Cleveland was described this was due to the demolishing of several buildings and an overall poor image that put forth a bad first impression to both residents and visitors.

In conclusion, while all three areas all had very different attributes, it was interesting to learn just how much overlap there was when it came to attempted redevelopment through the creation of sports facilities. Brooklyn Matters highlighted the corruption and selfishness behind these projects that was masked as a neighborhood improvement effort, while Chapin’s article focused more on the direct outcomes linked to these sports-centered initiatives. All in all, while some of these projects may have seemed more beneficial to community members than others, the biggest takeaway I had was that the intentions behind them never truly seemed to be altruistic or for the well-being of communities, but rather representing an ulterior motive to make money for those who are already wealthy.

Works Cited

Chapin, Timothy S. “Sports Facilities as Urban Redevelopment Catalysts: Baltimore’s Camden Yards and Cleveland’s Gateway.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70.2 (2004): 193-209. Web.

Kelsey Holdway

Professor Martin

Reaction Paper #1

9/28/15

Brooklyn Matters & Utah’s Ten Year Plan

“Brooklyn Matters” was an important documentary showing how people with more money can have more power than those with less money. They are able to have more say in governmental decisions, while community members struggle to get a voice in an argument. This documentary gives a visual comparison for the case study about Utah’s homeless population and how community members and Utah are helping get homeless into permanent housing. With two different motives it is key to compare and contrast them and also look at both of them from a pluralist view.

The homeless population since 2004 has been on a decline due to a program called “Housing First”. This program was put in place by Lt. Governor Olene Walker, with the help of many other organizations. There are four main strategies to the Housing First Program rather than just putting the chronically homeless into houses. The first objective set in place by Utah’s Homeless Coordinating Committee is Affordable Housing, this goal helps “create additional low income permanent “Housing First” units for chronically homeless and affordable housing units for all homeless persons and families” (Utah’s Plan To End Chronic Homelessness And Reduce Overall Homelessness By 2014, 2008). Prevention and Discharge Planning helps plan for those who are about to become homeless whether it be from jail, shelters, or hospitals. Supportive Services are set into place to help get the homeless that have been placed in affordable housing a chance to start again through case managers and different types of therapy programs. The last objective is, Homeless Management Information, which enters all of the homeless placed into housing units and keeps track of them and their outcomes/success rates.

The documentary, “Brooklyn Matters”, highlighted a neighborhood (Atlantic Yards) that was being redeveloped through a Community Based Agreement (CBA). Ratner wanted to go into Brooklyn and build a nicer community filled with luxury homes and even a basketball arena. His plans were going to put many residents out because of the cost of housing. The lower income community was going to be run out because of the project so they started to fight back. Ratner came up with an affordable housing agreement stating that they would build “affordable housing” for persons displaced from the new project.

Looking at both resources there are similarities and differences. Utah’s and Ratner’s plan both put money into the state. Ratner’s project to build this new community and arena would bring in more revenue to the state through luxury housing and entertainment. Utah’s plan would save the state money by cutting the amount of ER/hospital visits and incarceration days/costs. Many cities have started the same program, such as Denver, which net cost saving equal to about $4,745 which could be used in other financial opportunities. Both projects want to help people and give growth to a city. However, Ratner is more commercialized and looking at it largely from a money point of view; Utah is trying to combat a larger problem of homelessness which actually saves the state money. Certain people in both Brooklyn and Utah wield influence, the community members who agree with the project will support it and not speak out. The members who do not support the project will speak out and demand a change. The differences include who the decision making power is. In Brooklyn, Ratner and corporate have most of the power, however, in Utah much of the power is in the hands of the state and community organizations willing to help.

A large difference in Utah vs Rater is that, in Utah the funding is from the state and local government, while in Brooklyn the funding was private. Making the funding private gives power to the people/corporation and lowers the amount of voice the community has. In Utah, since the funding is from the state there is more accountability. Community members would probably have a greater chance of getting their voices heard if state and local officials were involved rather than private individuals, because there is a higher power above them that can change the way the program works if need be. The largest difference that outlines the both projects is that Rater had selected officials while the program and Utah elects officials (State’s Homeless Coordinating Committee). Giving more power to the people provides better opportunity for success. The members of the community live there and know what some challenges are rather than an official being selected that has never lived in the neighborhoods. For example, one major problem with homelessness in Utah is the addiction to drugs and alcohol. One idea the organization came up with was to give the chronically homeless supportive services that gives the person the option of getting treatment for his/her addiction. Selected official might ignore the underlying problems of the homeless and just provide them with shelter as long as they pay the low rent.

Both Ratner and the State’s Homeless Coordinating Committee have the same goal; provide the community with a chance of improvement while growing the city. However, Ratner designed a plan that would hurt one area of the community that did not have the money to live anywhere else. Utah saw a growing problem and decided to combat it with a program that would not do harm to any member in the community living around the project. Looking from a pluralist view it could be decided that a pluralist would agree Utah’s Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, because the decisions in the organization are being made by engaged community members and elected officials. The people who want to be involved are working to help make a change. There is a great deal of potential power in the communities in Utah, people know about the high homeless population and might be able to give insight to the elected officials on how to approach the project. A pluralist would not agree with Ratner because the decisions are made by him and a group of wealthy individuals. The community had little to no power in the decisions when they wanted to make a change. In Brooklyn there seemed to be an equal amount of actual power and potential power, however, it was only in the hand of the selected committee.

Work Cited

Brooklyn Matters Video watched in class

Comprehensive Report On Homelessness. 1st ed. Salt Lake City: Utah Housing and Community Development Division State Community Services Office, 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Utah’s Plan To End Chronic Homelessness And Reduce Overall Homelessness By 2014. 1st ed. Utah’s Homeless Coordinating Committee, 2008. Web. 29 Sept. 2015. (I’m having trouble getting the cited work to show up when you search it so I just added the link below.) http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/Utah_Ten_Year_Plan_May_12-2008.pdf

In post-industrial cities, after the economic crisis, there has been long-term structural unemployment congregating in the Northeast and Midwest. The rust belt hold the country’s poorest cities, many residents collecting in Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. The poverty threshold is the minimum level of income that is estimated for certain people in certain areas of the country and is measured yearly by the census bureau. Thirty percent of people living in these cities are below the poverty threshold for the country (Bartley, The Green Development Zone). There is not a national plan that is able to fix all aspects of an economic crisis that is nationwide, so many major cities are still facing issues that are the result of job scarcity and low socio-economic status.

In Buffalo, a community based organization, PUSH, was working towards the issues in the community such as lack of jobs and the declining neighborhood conditions by assembling a committee of residents with experience in organizing and management (Bartley, The Green Development Zone). Throughout this movement in the community, the board was able to provide work and on-the-job training to employ residents that could potentially be involved in crime or without work. Through different leadership and more awareness, the residents are able to fight against the poverty that was very prominent in their community. In the past, economic elites made the decisions that were only benefitting to themselves, but with the community taking control then benefits go right back into the community to work as an agent against poverty instead of redirecting it.

In New York City, government officials were fighting against graffiti in the subway.  What law makers didn’t think of when attempting to completely erase graffiti in the subways was that the crime would simply move elsewhere, as it did. Suddenly buildings and other public views were covered in graffiti, the crime was not stopped but moved in order to provide a safe and respectable looking city (Kramer, Moral Panics). This is what the decision making officials were doing in Buffalo with the poverty and neighborhood economy. Before PUSH nothing was being done to fix the problems that the community had been suffering with, but when corporation benefits are taken out of the equation then the community instead can began reconstruction their neighborhood economy.

Affordable housing is one of the big ticket problems that many face in large cities. Giving housing to the Buffalo community was one of the first and very successful plans that PUSH mobilized. The end goal was to rebuild the community economy and this project would not only provide homes but also promised jobs for the community residents. This provided facts and evidence that community organizers could make change and ties within the community and with the governing officials. Government ties with the community leaders would lead to more progression for the residents because the community based solutions were being seen as a new developmental directions that was proving to improve the economy.

There could be a connection made between Buffalo and New York City, both were trying to improve the conditions within the city by reducing crime. But how could crime be diminished with more regulations alone? The Buffalo community leaders provided jobs and training for residents (Bartley, The Green Development Zone). One resident claimed that without the construction job he would have been in jail. Changing the age that someone can legally buy spray paint will not lower the amount of crime within that city. For some reason graffiti is taken out of the category of art and seen as a “gateway” crime to more extreme crimes (Kramer, Moral Panics).

Struggling communities are often overlooked or replaced by large corporations and government officials that are trying to “clean up” cities. Some cities, such as New York City choose to place bans and extra regulations thinking that, as a result, crime and poverty will be diminished. Instead when the community leaders organized plans that are a true representation of what the residents need, like jobs and improved neighborhoods, many people that would have succumb to illegal activities are taken off the streets and provided with hope for the future. This address the problem with poverty and having too many residents below the poverty threshold. The economic issues are not cast away or replaced with a new stadium. PUSH gave the Buffalo community another chance to thrive through community based solutions.

In post-industrial cities, after the economic crisis, there has been long-term structural unemployment congregating in the Northeast and Midwest. The rust belt hold the country’s poorest cities, many residents collecting in Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. The poverty threshold is the minimum level of income that is estimated for certain people in certain areas of the country and is measured yearly by the census bureau. Thirty percent of people living in these cities are below the poverty threshold for the country (Bartley, The Green Development Zone). There is not a national plan that is able to fix all aspects of an economic crisis that is nationwide, so many major cities are still facing issues that are the result of job scarcity and low socio-economic status.

In Buffalo, a community based organization, PUSH, was working towards the issues in the community such as lack of jobs and the declining neighborhood conditions by assembling a committee of residents with experience in organizing and management (Bartley, The Green Development Zone). Throughout this movement in the community, the board was able to provide work and on-the-job training to employ residents that could potentially be involved in crime or without work. Through different leadership and more awareness, the residents are able to fight against the poverty that was very prominent in their community. In the past, economic elites made the decisions that were only benefitting to themselves, but with the community taking control then benefits go right back into the community to work as an agent against poverty instead of redirecting it.

In New York City, government officials were fighting against graffiti in the subway.  What law makers didn’t think of when attempting to completely erase graffiti in the subways was that the crime would simply move elsewhere, as it did. Suddenly buildings and other public views were covered in graffiti, the crime was not stopped but moved in order to provide a safe and respectable looking city (Kramer, Moral Panics). This is what the decision making officials were doing in Buffalo with the poverty and neighborhood economy. Before PUSH nothing was being done to fix the problems that the community had been suffering with, but when corporation benefits are taken out of the equation then the community instead can began reconstruction their neighborhood economy.

Affordable housing is one of the big ticket problems that many face in large cities. Giving housing to the Buffalo community was one of the first and very successful plans that PUSH mobilized. The end goal was to rebuild the community economy and this project would not only provide homes but also promised jobs for the community residents. This provided facts and evidence that community organizers could make change and ties within the community and with the governing officials. Government ties with the community leaders would lead to more progression for the residents because the community based solutions were being seen as a new developmental directions that was proving to improve the economy.

There could be a connection made between Buffalo and New York City, both were trying to improve the conditions within the city by reducing crime. But how could crime be diminished with more regulations alone? The Buffalo community leaders provided jobs and training for residents (Bartley, The Green Development Zone). One resident claimed that without the construction job he would have been in jail. Changing the age that someone can legally buy spray paint will not lower the amount of crime within that city. For some reason graffiti is taken out of the category of art and seen as a “gateway” crime to more extreme crimes (Kramer, Moral Panics).

Struggling communities are often overlooked or replaced by large corporations and government officials that are trying to “clean up” cities. Some cities, such as New York City choose to place bans and extra regulations thinking that, as a result, crime and poverty will be diminished. Instead when the community leaders organized plans that are a true representation of what the residents need, like jobs and improved neighborhoods, many people that would have succumb to illegal activities are taken off the streets and provided with hope for the future. This address the problem with poverty and having too many residents below the poverty threshold. The economic issues are not cast away or replaced with a new stadium. PUSH gave the Buffalo community another chance to thrive through community based