The Effects of Proposition 555, Research Paper Example

Proposition 555 is an essential and integral move towards economic growth and development of the urban area. The proposition to gentrify the dilapidated an unoccupied sections of the city is an important step towards economic growth and development of the city. This would significantly open up a number of opportunities for the city to strategically place itself as a business-hub.

Infrastructure

Proposition 555 aims at redeveloping the run-down and underdeveloped areas of the city. This is an integral part of the city’s vision to realize adequate infrastructure for optimal economic activity. Infrastructure is an integral aspect of economic growth and the proposition addresses this through the creation of buildings, roads and utility services throughout these dilapidates areas of the city.

Economic Growth and Development

The proposition addresses a number of economic issues plaguing the area proposed for redevelopment. The city has considerable potential for economic activity. However, the city’s management is not currently utilizing all resources at its disposal. The proposed redevelopment would attract professionals, drawing in new markets for existing as well as the development of new businesses offering new products and services to the existing and new population.

As highlighted by The Economist online journal, gentrification attracts new professionals that help the existing poor in the community. This is because their presence leads to launch of new businesses and enterprises, increasing employment opportunities in the redeveloped areas (The Economist). This injects capital into the city’s economy, jumpstarting and reviving economic growth and development in the redeveloped areas.

Improved Security

The current condition of the underdeveloped areas of the city make economic growth and development difficult. This is because insecurity is a counter agent of economic growth and development. Insecurity in these underdeveloped areas is largely associated with Section 8 housing and rent-controlled apartments. The demography associated with these areas include the poor and low-income earning families with the city (McConnell). The proposal aims to improve security by developing new infrastructure and putting unused and abandoned land to economic use.

As John Buntin postulates, gentrification leads to the general improvement of public safety. The development of new infrastructure provides a sense of economic stability which is essential in ensuring public safety. Crime is usually associated with low income families and predominantly poor neighborhoods (Buntin). However, Proposition 555 offers the low-income families with employment opportunities in these redeveloped areas. The increase in employment opportunities would lead to a general decrease in cases of insecurity as individuals would find legitimate way of earning a living, eliminating the need to engage in risky and life-threatening ventures.

Living Standards

The current living standards in the proposed areas for redevelopment are considerably low. This is largely owing to the poor state of infrastructure, economic conditions and lack of social amenities. Proposition 555 would considerably improve the living standards of the city’s residents. Increased employment opportunities would inject cash flows within the economy, triggering growth. This would increasing consumption within the city, creating a new and growing market for goods and services. This growing market would trigger the development of new businesses and enterprises, and even potentially attract investments from within and externally.

New and improved infrastructure would make it possible to conduct economic activities within these areas. The presence of social amenities is an integral facet to the stability of the social aspects of the economy. The social fabric can be enhanced and strengthened through the creation and development of amenities that are designed to foster and develop social stability and health within the economy. The proposed green space for parks, murals, arts and recreation would encourage social interaction and stability.

Counter Argument

While this proposition holds great promise and advantages for the city, there are a number of aspects about the proposal that are contentious. Proposition 555 should not be put into execution as in its current form, it holds greater damage than good for the city in the long-term. The proposition to gentrify dilapidated areas of the city include destroying Section 8 housing and rent-controlled apartments. This aspect of the proposition does not fall in line with ideal social development relative to economic development and growth (Vigdor).

The gentrification of section 8 housing and rent-controlled apartments would have considerable effect on the social fabric of the city. The proposed demolition of these areas in favor of the construction of a more diverse and upscale neighborhood would result in the considerable change in the city’s demographic. The proposed changes would eventually lead to the development of high-scale property, raising rent throughout the city. This increase in rents would lead to the eventual shift in demographic as a response to the change in the economic environment of the city.

Response

While there is considerable evidence that points to the potential shift in the demography of the city, these implications are not certain. The gentrification of the dilapidated sections of the city as well as Section 8 housing and rent-controlled apartments can be achieved with minimal implications on the existing low-income and poor inhabitants of these areas. This can be achieved through the execution of the project under given parameters that would define the scope and depth of development activities to be undertaken.

One of the most effective solutions to the potential long-term increase in rent in the area would be the institution of zone laws. As The Economist holds, a requirement for developers to build subsidized housing for the low-income and poor within the proposed areas, alongside high-end market housing is an effective way of eliminating the potential negative side effects of the proposed redevelopment (The Economist). Furthermore, this development would be executed in phases. By carrying out the project in phases, it allows for the adequate planning and timing of the development to meet ethical requirements of economic development. This would allow for the individuals currently dwelling in those areas the opportunity to realize the advantages of the economic development to be realized in the area.

In conclusion, Proposition 555 an integral step towards realizing the full economic potential of the city. The proposal aims to improve the infrastructure within the city’s dilapidated areas and introducing a planned and structured approach to economic growth and development. There is concern on the effects that this project would have on the city’s existing demographic. There is the potential of increased living standards, far above what the existing residents can afford. However, zone laws can allow the development to adopt a fair and just approach to developing the area. The proposed redevelopment would significantly spur economic growth and development by attracting new businesses and rejuvenating existing ones. This would also increase employment within the city, injecting much needed cash flows into the economy. This would in turn increase spending and consumption, developing and increasing markets for diverse goods and services.

Works Cited

Buntin, John. “The Myth of Gentrification.” 14 January 2015. Slate.com. Inrternet Source. 24 March 2015. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html>.

McConnell, Mez. “Does Gentrification Harm The Poor?” 12 February 2014. 20Schemes.com. Internet Source. 24 March 2015. <http://20schemes.com/2014/does-gentrification-harm-the-poor/>.

Nevius, C W. “Gentrification no longer a dirty word.” 31 July 2014. SFGate.com. Internet Source. 24 March 2015. <http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Gentrification-no-longer-a-dirty-word-4302093.php>.

The Economist. “Gentrification: Bring on the hipsters.” 21 February 2015. TheEconomist.com. Internet Source. 24 March 2015. <http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21644164-gentrification-good-poor-bring-hipsters>.

Vigdor, Jacob L. “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor.” 13 September 2001. Researchgate.net. Internet Source. 24 March 2015. <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/238792868_Does_Gentrification_Harm_the_Poor>.