The pattern of governmental fragmentation in U.S. metropolitan regions like Greater Philadelphia(where i live) has led to a geographical mismatch between needs versus resources. Where disadvantaged people need the most public services, the tax revenues are least available to pay for those services. In your opinion, which of the following remedies would be easier to implement? 1.) building new and better housing in inner cities to attract middle class families back to the city center? or 2.) building more affordable housing in the suburbs so low-income families could move to suburban communities?
heres what i think:
Building more affordable low income housing in suburban areas is a much more "acceptable" idea. I'm not sure middle income familes would move to impoverished cities because of the stigma of poor quality schools, health care and sanitation. If we gave more families of different income status opprotunities to have the same education, health care, job opprotunities and housing as other families do, already living in the suburbs, the cycle of poverty would not perpetuate itself. The children would be able to get out of those neighborhoods, and get better educations, and get better jobs.
The people who need the most help, are the people who can not afford it, who live in the most impoverished areas. As a wealthy nation, whether perfomed at a federal, state, or local gov't level, we must give money to these areas, we must help re-develop those areas, and we must help make sure those children in those areas get the same education children in the wealthy town next to them get.