Defining Necessary, in Response to Mike's Post
In Mike's blog "Doing What is Necessary" he brings up the valid point that in order transform a suffering community into a wealthy one, it may be necessary to "overhaul the population" (i.e. the poor population). For the sake of the argument, let's assume that Mike is right, that putting in high-end housing will revitalize the economy while increasing taxes, raising the price of real estate, and forcing the poorest community members out of the city. The decision of whether to implement such a plan would be based on one's values; which is more important, improving crime and income statistics of the community or the improving the quality of life of the people for whom this plan was created in the first place?
The purpose of economic development is to bring new jobs to a region in order to reduce unemployment among the people that live there, thereby increasing their quality of life. This plan does not help those in need. While the town itself may become more wealthy, its original inhabitants (who the plan was supposed to benefit) will not, as they will be forced to move to some other decrepit city where they still won’t be able to find jobs.
Public officials are elected to do what is in the best interest of the people, and supporting a plan that would force out the poorest people is not a way to represent their interests. What good are lower crime, better education, and a cleaner city for the people who have been forced to move elsewhere?
Mike’s point may be correct that a population change might be the best way to make a city become wealthier, but this argument misses the point of public policy. More important then whether or not the city is wealthy is whether or not the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder have an opportunity to move up. Raising taxes and property values to force out the people who already have the highest barriers to overcome will only perpetuate the problem of poverty by moving it elsewhere, and should not be our only solution to the problem of depressed cities.
1 Comments:
Unfortunately, this is a problem policy makers face all around the country. While a renaissance does wonders for property values, taxes bases (and, therefore, public schools budgets), and general quality of life, it certainly doesn't help any residents it pushes out of the area. It's heartbreaking to hear about people forced out of communities (due to rising property values that lead to higher property taxes) after spending their entire lives in the town.
One step in the right direction is to use the extra tax revenue generated from higher property values to provide property tax relief to lower income families, or to simply reduce the property tax rate across the board. Sure, it cuts into the extra tax revenue generated by the development, but it helps keep the community together, helps the life-long residents, and helps senior citizens.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home