Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Federal Policy Regarding Cities: « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 613
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Recently in a class, this idea was brought up:

Federal Government sets U.S. Policy, but they frequently ignore urban planning issues.

Obviously, in my opinion at least, that statement holds at least some truth, but I wanted to know what you guys think.

Think that statement is true? if so, how true? think it's BS? Give some examples. I'm curious as to what you think! - Andy
Top of pageBottom of page

Spiritofdetroit
Member
Username: Spiritofdetroit

Post Number: 676
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

the housing act of 1937 devastated cities... It built project, only in urban centers, and it inspired suburban growth. Part of the plan actually insisted that black neighborhoods stay black, and white neighborhoods white. this made it impossible for blacks to move to the suburbs.

the highway initiative was first funded by the federal government and ripped through the inner city neighborhoods.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 1901
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 3:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A few long stories short:

Don't forget about the FHA (Federal Housing Administration). They basically condoned the practice of red lining by not providing home loans to whites not adequately separated from blacks.

Also too, there was a few acts of Congress that built the Interstate highway system. The side effect was allowing some to move out of urban areas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 614
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 4:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, i would personally cite at least public housing programs, interstate highway system, fha loans, and gi bill as MAJOR oversights on the part of the feds...
Top of pageBottom of page

Spiritofdetroit
Member
Username: Spiritofdetroit

Post Number: 677
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 4:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

and the sad thing is, these were all considered "urban renewal" projects. It shows a serious lack of leadership somewhere...
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 615
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 7:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

that's sort of the flip-side here. federal policy has hurt cities... but frequently at the recommendation of urban planners... odd.
Top of pageBottom of page

Spiritofdetroit
Member
Username: Spiritofdetroit

Post Number: 679
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 7:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Reagan and Clinton continued to make cuts to programs that were heavily centered in urban areas as well....
Top of pageBottom of page

Arc312
Member
Username: Arc312

Post Number: 48
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Andy, welcome to my college career!

Don't forget that while planners main job is to create positive, and equitable growth, they have never been able to achieve this thanks to the dirty connotation of "social work". While the planner can bring a new factory, mall, high-density apartment building, stadium, etc. the planner has never been able to make sure that a) the development fits the community, and b) the development will better the SES of the community.

The first planners were also social reformists, but everyone enjoyed their physical designs moreso than the social visioning that would have been required to make their vision complete.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2

Post Number: 545
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Federal planning on a local level usually means problems locals endure. Not enough representation in the equation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 625
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 12:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

it's kind of messed up. in a way federal intervention KILLED urban areas... and I would have liked nothing more than to go back and say "shit dudes, hands off... leave cities alone..." but now Cities depend, are would have to depend on the feds, to improve... exceptions include only those "popular" cities... like portland, sanfran, atlantic, and las vegas, etc...
Top of pageBottom of page

Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2

Post Number: 622
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 1:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

wow how sad this is all, i am so sad that people cannot make independent decisions outside the federal government. you depend on you become of.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4549
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 3:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

wow how sad this is all, i am so sad that people cannot make independent decisions outside the federal government. you depend on you become of.

Take Katrina in New Orleans... Those idiots there had an entire week to evacuate, but didn't. And then those hopelessly dependent fools have the nerve to demand that it's the fault of government and society and that they should be further provided for. Much of that mentality exists in Detroit. Just look around.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.