I need a hobby. --- While I agree that the less homogenous the school population the better, I disagree with the proposed avenues of approach. Mandating that private companies offer affordable housing to a certain percentage of individuals means that great neighborhoods have a small handful of lottery winners who can live there –for a time. The “ghettos” will still exist. I’m not judging, I live in one. Instead, I propose that local governments do their job. It’s not a secret that government services pander to the areas with affluent neighbors by providing them with better maintained public properties, roads and stricter zoning laws and enforcement. Meanwhile those in the less affluent areas get their city “services” in the form of purportedly increased police patrols and education on how to utilize public assistance programs. While I’m not arguing against a certain need for either, there is a way to degentrify localities while boosting the self-integrity, self-perception of capability and citizenship behaviors in a more cost-effective manner: offer the same or a more equitable level of city service to all areas of the city. While it might be argued that those who pay more in property taxes should be afforded increased benefits and securities, it cannot be ignored that less affluent areas are more densely populated and the individual unit of valuation in one area is matched or, more likely, exceeded in another area by multiple family units in the same acreage. Will the roads and parks etc. show more wear due to heavier traffic? Of course. There will never be a great and magical residential equalizer. Yet, cities, such as Austin, place a greater priority on making life attractive for the wrong population of individuals. Those who can afford Escalades are less likely to utilize state-of the art- mass transit. Those who have acreage, summer homes and club memberships are less likely to utilize a beautifully landscaped trail or park. The economically disadvantaged, which in Austin seems to include the middle-class, will not only make greater use of those services, they will be better citizens for it. You can go to google scholar and easily find studies correlating well-maintained public parks and open spaces with increased health, positive civic behavior and lower incidences of crime. Intermural leagues and the like which are easily accessible and affordable to adolescents deter crime, offer healthy social support systems and teach valuable life lessons in responsibility that translate into higher earning potential later on. You will also find that the attractiveness, and perceived safety of a locality are directly correlated with positive civic behavior, expectations of self and income potential of the children raised there. There is a moralistic/humanistic incentive for more equitable spending, yet there is a simple economic one: Prevention is always cheaper. Prevention of crime, prevention of failing schools and prevention of public health problems and the like will always be cheaper than patch fixes. I’m not a proponent of large and invasive government programs. I am, however, a proponent of giving the citizen what they pay for. Currently, the citizens of Austin , be they downtown or in urban sprawl 15 miles out, pay a high price tag for amenities/programs/services in select areas (Town Lake, Wooldridge Park…to name two). Yet those services are less accessible due to distance and hassle factor to those not in the immediate and much more affluent vicinity. Take a look at the public schools, parks, roads in the less affluent areas and you will see out of commissioned bridges, ill-maintained trails and over-flowing trash, etc.. Why? We all know why, but let’s fix it via greater citizen participation and greater accountability. Let’s just stop throwing money randomly at something and come up with a long-term plan.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 07:17:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015