Bank of America has always been a big name for a finance company[ in the United States. My Mom has actually worked for the company for 23 years, and has always told me how terrible of a company they are. I really shouldn’t have been surprised when they came up in the book, as one of many famous companies that have received subsidies on the basis of creating new jobs, only to layoff its employees shortly thereafter. Bank of America has actually done this twice in the past 20 years once in 1993 and again in 2004. In 1993 the Bank received $18 million in subsidies to move their employees into the world trade center, in return they were suppose to retain 1700 jobs, five years later they merged with Security Pacific National Bank and laid off 800 …show more content…
Sprawl is basically the relocating of big name stores or factories such as Wal-Mart away from urbanized areas to non-urbanized areas. Wal-Mart is a great example of Sprawl; their massive superstores simply do not fit in large cities because there is no room for a giant 200,000square foot Wal-Mart in the middle of a bustling city. Instead of building a smaller store they relocate away from cities, into pretty green nature. Where they take away farmland and natural resources in order to build massive two story buildings in order to offer anything at extremely low prices. Besides taking farmland and polluting our air, companies that decide to participate in Sprawl, are also taking jobs away from the Americans who need them most. For example in 1989 Sears was given a massive subsidy by Illinois, when they threatened to leave. Sears moved 29 miles away from the urban city to a white suburban neighborhood of Illinois, and it did not offer its employees a form of transit. Unfortunately for the low-income employees that did not have cars they were not able to commute and therefore were out of a job. Aside from taking jobs from those who need it, Sprawl is also is being funded by taxpayer money. Taxpayers subsidize these relocations through TIFs, basically means build now pay later. TIFs most of the time are to good to be true, because the government believes the raise in real estate tax from the new factory or store will equal out the amount it costs to build it, which usually does not
“gentrification as an ugly product of greed. Yet these perspectives miss the point. Gentrification is a byproduct of mankind 's continuing interest in advancing the notion that one group is more superior to another and worthy of capitalistic consumption with little regard to social consciousness. It is elitism of the utmost and exclusionary politics to the core. This has been a constant theme of mankind to take or deplete a space for personal gain. In other words, it 's very similar to the "great advantage" of European powers over Native Americans and westward expansion”(Wharton).
The Negative Effects of Gentrification in Oakland A very big local issue in Oakland and the Bay Area is and has continued to be Gentrification. Gentrification is, “The process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste” (Google). Gentrification has displaced and continues to displace many low-income minorities. As prices of houses and rent costs have gone up, many have been forced to flee. This has made this problem increasingly recognized in my community as it has affected many of us.
cents” (Morris 23). According to this information, urban sprawl is costing tax payers in areas of
After the world war, to the suburban growth in the 1990s and it affects American greatly because it contributed to the economy growth of United State after the Second World War, some state in U.S like Texas New York, and Pennsylvania became the most famous cities in the united State in 1950s. American started to buy land in the country of the cities, to build a house that is cheap, and people were able to buy subsides low mortgages than renting an expensive apartment in the city.
Urban Consolidation Factors and Fallacies in Urban Consolidation: Introduction As proponents of urban consolidation and consolidated living continue to manifest in our society, we must ensure that our acknowledgment of its benefits, and the problems of its agitator (sprawl), do not hinder our caution over its continually changing objectives. Definition Like much urban policy, the potential benefits that urban consolidation and the urban village concept seek to offer are substantially undermined by ambiguous definition. This ambiguity, as expressed through a general lack of inter-governmental and inter-professional cohesion on this policy, can best be understood in terms of individual motives (AIUSH,1991). * State Government^s participatory role in the reduction of infrastructure spending.
The third listing for the definition of sprawl in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is as follows: “to spread or develop irregularly”. Unfortunately, this is the pattern, or lack thereof, with which America’s development is following. Every single day the world population rises, and these new babies have to live somewhere. Due to the fact that the birth rate is larger than that of the death rate in America (http://www.bartleby.com/151/a24.html), new homes and communities must be developed to accommodate all of the incoming people. This fundamental concept is coupled by another very powerful driving force prompting people to live in the suburbs of America, and that is greed. The economy makes available to the country a degree of ownership never before matched in our history, and people are taking advantage of it. This idea drives people to move from the congested, smoky, and frantic cities to the serenity of the countryside, where they have the opportunity to own much more land and live a more peaceful life. For a time this worked very nicely as portrayed in the incredible success of the communities created by William Levitt. Levittown was a dream of William Levitt, which encompassed the idea that all Americans can afford a home in the country. It was a success in the time of its creation, but we are beginning to see the dangers that this type of super growth brings along with it. Urban sprawl is an issue that will require much attention in the future, to prevent the negative effects that are already taking their toll.
Urban development (such as housing and construction) spreading into rural or suburban areas can be described as suburban sprawl. For example, Toronto’s urban development expanding into Brampton. Over the past few years, a lot of suburban sprawl has been happening in the GTA. Suburban sprawl can mean that human needs such as public transit or stores could be reached without having to travel a long distance. However, sprawl can also result in air pollution, climate change, and loss of agricultural land use. These factors especially
Gentrification brings in money and good investments into poor neighborhood, but the money and investments does not help the old residents; it only helps real estate agents. Gentrification may also make the city safer and cleaner than before but it harms old residents. The idea of gentrification is bad because prices goes up and with prices going up, people are either losing their homes or businesses or both. Gentrification affects old residents and business in a bad way, which causes the old residents to leave because of the rich taking over.
Thus reaffirming that the act of gentrification does in fact have negative impacts. Furthermore, Paul continues to add persuasion to his side of the argument further questioning if the newer residents or “pioneers” that have "discovered" these cities and bring “urban revival” have romanticized their "frontier” and are oblivious to their impact on the residents or if they realize “One person's "pioneer" can be another's "invader" .In addition to his use of the words with American Old West connotations, from he adds a compare and contrast between gentrification in Brooklyn, New York and the American colonialism involving the Native American population eventually conveying that in both situations there was the language of colonial expansionism “that neglects the question of what happens to the natives….It removes any social consequence to the process”. Paul believes that one of the most important negative effects of gentrification is the that new resident’s and businesses’ apathy towards their direct and indirect impact of their native neighbors. His ultimate goal is make America aware of their monopolizing of urban communities as well as the negative effects that it
In discussions of Gentrification, one controversial issue has been with displacement. Gentrification is the process of renovating and repairing a house or district so that it complies to wealthier residents (Biro, 2007, p. 42). Displacement is a result of gentrification, and is a major issue for lower income families. Gentrification is causing lower-income residents to move out of their apartments because they’re being displaced by upper class residents who can afford high rent prices and more successful businesses. Throughout out the essay, I will discuss how gentrification affects lower income residents and how it results in displacement. Then I will follow on by discussing some positive and negative effects that take place because of Gentrification.
Gentrification is not about race, yet it is dressed up to be. Gentrification at its core is about new companies coming and old local stores being replaced. A more complex analysis would be that; gentrification has a significant effect and shifts on people of low-income residencies with a diverse population being replaced by primarily wealthy white residents. This causes a rift towards small and local business, culture and aesthetic of neighborhoods with the changes of new coming residents raising housing cost and ultramodern companies.(Leonard 2013) Despite the main cause of gentrification being new companies moving into low-income diverse neighborhoods. It is not portrayed in such fashion, but rather portrayed as the displacement of minorities.
Ewing, R, et al. Endangered by Sprawl: How Runaway Development Threatens America's Wildlife. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, Smart Growth America and Nature Serve, January 2005. Report.
Recently, urban development has become increasingly vulnerable to the growing impact of gentrification. Our nation’s capitol, more commonly known Washington, D.C., unfortunately has been heavily affected by gentrification. Gentrification is the process of renovating and improving a house or district, so that it conforms to a certain middle-class taste. This certain exchange of private land is a continuous competing claim between public and private owners. In addition, Kathryn Howell, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University claims, “In the most recent wave of urban redevelopment, the change has been led largely by public–private partnerships in a market-driven process. … this type of redevelopment represents a perceived ‘win-win’ for
The process of gentrification although positive for the community, can have a negative effect on social class. “Social class grounded in sets of power relations consisting of domination and exploitation in which gentrification is the neighborhood expression” (Slater 2009:297). However, the overall perception is not always so welcoming to those of meager means and therefore, inequality will remain to cause segregation among the classes due to this perception. As a result, lower-income families dare not go into a business in a recently gentrified area because of its perception. For myself, I can say that many times I have seen a store or shop, but if it looks expensive on the outside, I perceive it must expensive inside and tend not to go
We all know the urbanization rate is an index to value the development of a country. However, though urbanization provides great convenience to some individuals, it also brings about negative effects. Problems such as pollution, overcrowded and the high unemployment appear during the process of urbanization and they are hard to cope with. In face of the sequence of problems, a new way of development ----sustainable development was put forward. Just like its literal meaning, the word sustainability has something to do with continuity. It was used since 1980s and first appeared in Britain law in 1993. Sustainable development can help solve parts of the problem caused by urbanization, including environmental damage, overuse of resources, and natural disasters.