Gentrification in cities

Segregation Quoting a dictionary definition or examining the origins of a term does not accomplish anything when analyzing economic consequences. All that is relevant is the effects and incentives that emerge. Next con proposes integration without gentrification even though I proved in round 1 that gentrification clearly accomplishes this. Con engages in the same method of quoting the dictionary definition of integration and the origins of the terms as opposed to analyzing what methods accomplish this goal. Next con objects to the integration done from gentrification due to the fact that a name was changed in a neighborhood. This connects to my next contention of crime but I will address it here and that is that changing a name really benefits the productivity that can be created in that neighborhood. If I am opening a business there is no way that I am opening up one in Compton, California because of the crime and gangs associated with that neighborhood and I am sure con would have the same reasoning. But even if on paper crime was removed from that neighborhood the association of that city with crime and gangs cannot always be removed because of the legacy. Changing the names would prevent newcomers to this area or people starting businesses from being aware of such a thing. Once again we need to look at the effects of policies not how they will be perceived. A name change is something trivial and while some might be sad about it, the positive effects that emerge should prevail. I agree with pretty much everything that con wrote at the end of his paragraph. It is wrong to put restrictions on businesses or for buildings and I think reducing red tape is a good solution. But gentrification still needs to come first before that can happen. Crime Once again, con’s points about education and crime are not necessarily incorrect and I do not completely object to them. However, it simply cannot be denied that crime being reduced is the prerequisite for gentrification. And the biggest testament to that is that the prices increase in the neighborhood! Basic economics dictate that prices do not increase for no reason. Only once crime is decreased to the prices rise. Now, many might argue that price increase on property is not a good thing but this would reflect ignorance on economics. Prices are not inherently good or bad but rather a reflection of how scarce something is [1]. The reason that lower crime neighborhoods are more expensive is because of all the neighborhoods that do have crime. If less crime was more universal prices can then drop. This applies to the example con brought up regarding neighborhoods in New York. Con is correct on this point that I will jump and say this is evidence that gentrification works because it clearly demonstrates that gentrification worked in one neighborhood and that an area without gentrification declined [2]. It would be absurd to suggest that when a neighborhood progresses they should refuse to because they are bringing down the value of the other neighborhood. If we were to apply this principle to economics in general we would be completely stagnated because there would be no way to innovate. For example, the innovation of cell phones makes the sale of home phones decline [3]. This is how a market works; With each innovation, there are impacts. The inventive that is created to the other neighborhoods that con is referring to is that the principles of gentrification should be made in that neighborhood as well. Each neighborhood should be concerned with themselves on an individual level because it is impossible to do so in a completely centralized way. Con ignored the main idea about my point with education and crime. I do not object that in terms of individuals commit less crimes with more education in the long term. My point was that the culture of the community does not always change if the crime is still there. That is why gentrification includes bringing more educated people to the community to change that culture in addition to combating crime. Because if I am an educated man, once again, I cannot open a store in a place where there is very high crime no matter how educated I am. They must work hand in hand and you cannot have one without the other. Education in schools only helps for a new generation not for people who are already criminals. Gentrification does not prevent education it just prioritizes the immediate issue of crime. I was simply giving evidence that it can also positively benefit education as well. Conclusion For an economy to prosper we need to allow productive people to be productive and combat any burden to productivity such as crime. I have proven (and con did as well last round) that gentrification when executed properly worked in neighborhoods and neighborhoods that did not have gentrification remained segregated and high crime and even got worse. Of course, this does not mean that there are no other ways of improving a community such as education but when it comes to the overall economy and productivity of the neighborhood gentrification is a means of achieving that. Thank you con for debating and thank you voters for reading. Sources: [1]: http://www.investopedia.com... [2]: http://www.citylab.com... [3]: http://www.pewresearch.org...