1) Read Chudacoff, chapter 10
2) Respond to this post with at least one substantial comment (2-3 paragraphs), judging the effectiveness of government responses to the “urban crisis.” 
Read the comments that have come before you so that you can avoid repetition and add something new to the conversation. Refer to the Chudacoff reading and include page numbers in parentheses when you do so.
Assignment due May 9
This entry was posted in admin only: Assignments, admin only: Featured, May 9 Assignment. Bookmark the permalink.
The long-term effects of social and political trends in the 1930s, the establishment of labor unions and rising incomes, the promise of well-paid jobs and the increase of ownership of houses led to the return of prosperity during the post World War II times. However, Chudacoff states that “the affluence and high expectations in the postwar decades contributed to what was called an ‘urban crisis” (Chudacoff 215). The “urban crisis” refers to the social and economical problems experienced with all the positive trends. Millions of whites moved to the suburbs, leaving neighborhoods that aren’t as well off to African Americans. This left racial conflicts that were often violent. A recession and financial crisis occurred in the 1970s, where cities lost jobs, population and, most importantly, optimism towards the future.
If you were to judge how effective government responses were towards the “urban crisis,” it’s better to judge the lack of responses instead. Although legislations were passed, it served to sever “the federal-city relationship, which had originated during the New Deal in the 1930s and expanded during the Great Society of the 1960s (Chudacoff 250). The passage of the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Act of 1974 gave local officials more discretion towards the spending of federal revenue-sharing funds. Political moods were shifting towards conservative and a loss of faith in governmental programs. Reagan reduced federal aid to cities and social programs, cutting spending in welfare, food stamps and child nutrition.
American cities were able to recover from its fiscal problems. New York City “not only recovered but reached new heights of visible affluence in the decades ahead” (Chudacoff 245). However, federal priorities shifted away from the cities. The “trend of strong government engagement with social welfare and urban revitalization” (Chudacoff 245) was reversed, as a new climate took place in cities. Manufacturing shifted to lower-wage countries, as global economy became a higher priority, especially with the emergence of “Global Cities”. However, this led to an increase in poverty and homelessness as manufacturing jobs became more scarce. The growth of financial and service sectors in cities and the breaking down of New Deal social programs broke cities into two groups; those that are thriving and those that are struggling.
I completely agree with Eleazor. If you look back at what was going on throughout the city before the “urban crisis,” the government was believed to be bettering and somewhat improving the city. During this time, the government was creating all kinds of new roads and highways making it easier for people to get around instead of having to use the main streets within the city/cities. Once these new roads and highways were created, it also created a new separation between the people who could afford to travel and the people who could not. And this created an even larger gap between people with money and what we now know as the lower class. As this gap grew larger and larger, there were some people left in the middle of being rich and poor, thus creating New York City’s middle class.
If you ask me, I would say that the government more than likely caused the “urban crisis” and then later on did not know how to fix something that they started. And when the government did try to help the situation, they were looking out for themselves more than the lower class citizens.
*I agree with both Eleazer and Shayna. It seemed as if the Federal government just watched the whole urban crisis occur in front of them without lending out a HELPING hand. The most they came up with was the idea to Ronald Reagan’s “trickle down” method in which he believed if the rich were assisted the money will eventually get “trickled down” to the poor. However, this theory had the opposite affect; there was an even greater gap between the rich and the poor when the government was helping out those who already had the wealth and ignoring those who needed support.
Economic instability caused cities to become corrupted when they otherwise would not have been had they not been neglected. Many relied on the sale of drugs to make their profits, and gambling was fought to be legalized so people can make quick cash. Public companies threatened to privatize to reduce employees causing the employees to work excessively. Also, a major health issue was the contagious HIV virus.
While the cities were on the way downhill, the suburbs were receiving tremendous assistance to progress. This is how the more wealthy citizens lived in the suburban areas while the poor homeless people settled on the streets of the cities.
I agree with all that have been said, and I just wanted to add that even though government aid was basically ineffective in the cities, the rural and suburban areas were the contrary. So instead of saying the government as a whole was ineffective, only parts of the government was. Hence, the change in the suburban and city economic status. As Chudacoff would say it, “Middle class Americans reeling from the impacts of inflation and a stalled economy, were losing faith in governmental programs.” (pg 251)
Not enough government aid was going out to the people that needed it and the response was just horrible.
Crises hit the face of the city from many angles. That which was possibly considered minor issues quickly expanded into significant predicaments which later contributed to the urban crisis. There were financial issues, racial issues and other economical issues that seemed unbearable. However, the government contributed profusely to the rebuilding of the economy, or the resurfacing of the previous state of the economy. I believe that the government made an effort in responding to the crisis effectively – “Servicemen returning from the war faced sever housing shortages in cities but found assistance from the expanded federal government” (Chudacoff pg 218). Other things the government did for the city are listed in my colleagues comments.
Though the government worked towards moving out of the crisis, there were results of other crises developing. For example, segregation of the races and the rich and poor due to the fact that a gap had transpired between them as a result of the type of support and assistance offered by the government. However, the american cities were able to return to a state where it had recovered from most of they issues faced.
Chudacoff introduced some of The leading to crisis in many of use cities , for instance in New York city borrowed heavily during the expansion of 1960 , by 1970The city was forced to finance many of it services, he added that long with this issue ,it was also excessive wages paid to municipal employees and excessive welfare.
Chudacoff emphasized the measures that government took -at the state and at the federal level- in trying solving such problem, which leads to privatized many public services in order to cut cost. Since 1960s the presidents elected proposed many solutions to balance the deficit like tax increase but it raised a debate in whether to raise taxes or to increase spending in dealing with the urban issues. The Urban bill aid passed In this matter was kind of a political standoff the New York times editorial added(p293). President after president the urban issues left without a long term plan solution . Not until 1992 when president Clinton proposed an agenda to serve budget agreement with a congress, however, it was not a direct way out to urban problems . 1992 violent renewed a concern about abject poverty brings racial discrimination, and insufficiency of social welfare to a surface at state and federal level. “Bush immediate response to rioting was To attack great society program on which president Reagan had effectively laid for most urban problems”(p292), this showed that government spend not enough on inner cities.
Poverty was the most crisis any society may face, and indeed it is the most problematic one hits many US cities, and to fight such crisis it required a hug resources and strong long , effective long term plan. The presidential candidates who were elected faced with many challenges after1960s but they did not putting a enormous effort on urban crisis rather than most of their plans were kind of bind aid rather than to carry out a long term solution programs. Chudacoff stated that Boston’s mayor Raymond Flynn grumbled “This is not Federation , This fraud”(p290). I founded that this is a general statement that best describing the government responses, in addition to other international issues that shifted away the government’s attention from urban crisis, like oil crisis 1973, golf war 1991 .
I agree with all about what they have stated above. There was a fiscal crisis occur because government overspend their budgets on road maintenance, education, to honor union contracts and to meet many other social obligations.(p284)There were other main causes that lead to fiscal crisis was excessive wages paid to municipal employees. City crossed over more debt because bank agreed to loan more but in high interest rate which lead New York city to have more crisis. Since, more cities faced crisis, several cities considered generating new revenues through legalized gambling. In 1978, casino gambling became legal in Atlantic City, New Jersey.( Pg291)Different government law had been passed to overcome the crisis but there is still a gap between rich and a poor income, we are still hoping for positive response and positive response form the cities and government.
The “urban crisis” took the many shapes from the deterioration of social life to economic struggle. Since everyone started moving from the cities to suburbs, cities were hit hard by the loss of population and jobs to support them. This was a result of most jobs including manufacturing jobs which were being relocated to the suburban areas. Where as in Sun Belt areas jobs and population flourished, other areas were “finding it difficult to compete with cheaper, high-quality foreign imports” (Chudacoff p248).
The government was inefficient during this crisis. The government was not attacking the the problems, but rather the problems that rose as a consequence. For example, “by 1995, there were 10 million needy renters and just 6 million low-rent apartments” (Chudacoff p256). Rather than create more low rent apartments, the government “cracked down on panhandling…” assuming that contribution to homelessness was the mentally ill who were released from mental institutions and had nowhere else to go. They failed to solve the actual cause that generated these problems. Critically speaking, I feel that Chudacoff fails to mention some of the actions the government did as a result of the urban crisis. The rise of gangs and crimes seemed to just be taking its own path. Was the police force growing as a result, giving more jobs to people? Seemed as if “crime rates…actually leveled off nationwide after with explosive growth…” (Chudacoff p258) on their own rather some sort of government assistance.
Chudacoff speaks of deindustrialization, how the US manufacturing factories had to shut down due to the competition from foreign countries that were producing the same products for cheaper (sometimes even better-quality, like with cars). With factories closing, unemployment rising, and population shifts from the cities to suburbs, the sudden, unexpected changes caused financial difficulties.
Some of the federal policies in response to these problems seemed ineffective. One of the policies that the federal government passed was the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Act. Apparently this allowed “local officials more discretion over how to spend federal revenue-sharing funds,” (Chudacoff pg. 250). This was done rather than specifically directing cities to use the money on certain city problems. Although it was to decrease federal government control on local governments, it allowed money to be mishandled in that they did not know where the money was going for. Also, “big city officials had to spend most of their grants to avoid severe budget cuts,” (Chudacoff 250). Because the federal government did not know where the money from the grant was going towards, they encouraged suburbs to “undertake new projects such as roads and sewage treatment,” not knowing that there were more urgent problems for the money to be used on (Chudacoff 250).
Even looking at one of the many other ineffective policies that the federal government created in response to the “urban crisis,” you can tell that the main problem was the lack of communication between suburbs and cities and the federal government. People living during that time period, the 60’s and 70’s, showed disinterest and lack of support for these federal urban policies. According to Chudacoff, by the 80’s, “Middle-class Americans, reeling from the impacts of inflation and a stalled economy, were losing faith in governmental programs,” (Chudacoff 251).
I concur with all the comments previously stated. There is a familiarity between many of the which is GOVERNMENT NEGLECTION and the GAP it created. By the spending of money of things outside of urban areas it bridged a gap between those who were able to get to those areas and those who could not. According to Chudacoff “cities were left without adequate resources to meet their needs, and political fragmentation prevented regional or metropolitan solutions (283).”
Other initiatives were to be implemented as well. For example former President Jimmy Carter’s broad urban policy program. He chose to put a hault in “extensive government assistance” but rather use all forms of government to help the crisis. He had a proposal for the government to continue programs such as the Urban Development Action Grants, relieving cities of their distress through and creating a $1 billion public works program. His intention was to “bring private capital investment back to cities by granting tax breaks to businesses that hired the long-term unemployed….the urban policy invited more inter-government cooperation by encouraging state governments to get involved in renewal efforts (287).” But this plan was turned down by Congress who swayed toward suburban development and upbringing.
Ronald Reagan’s “trickle down” theory to the urban poor was in my opinion the most biased idea ever made by a President. His idea was to fund the rich and the middle class and allow the money they gained to trickle down to the poor. With this idea the gap between the socio-economic divisions increased and the depression of it were seen everywhere, but not like in the cities. Reagan also thought that by reducing government intervention in the market the market will enhance itself and reinvigorate American economy. This is an example of Milton Friedman’s free market theory. Instead of helping these communities Reagan completely neglected them causing a bigger gap. I guess the trickle down theory wasn’t such a good idea after all!
The comments stated above are all right in their respective arguments. However, there are always two sides to a coin like there is to an argument. The different regimes and policies of various time periods did falter in many instances because ACTUAL benefits differed from the INTENDED benefits. Also, policies have certain opportuinty costs; even though Reagan’s policies failed the poor, and widened the economic gap, it did, to a certain extent, start an ecconomic regrowth with the promotion of private sector investments. (p252)
Clinton’s regime on the otherhand, was effective in solving certain urban issues by using a similar policy like Reagan’s as it was directly aimed at the poor. He slashed taxes and reduced governemnt regulation of businesses to stimulate private sector investments in poverty stricken areas which resulted in a 200 percent return. (p262) He also addressed welfare issues by his welfare reform bill which limited the benefits and increased unemployment rates, greatly reducing the number of welfare recipients, and his HOPE VI housing program replaced notorious, high poverty and crime rate neighbourhoods with better housing for all income levels.(p263)
The “urban crisis” refers to the social and economical problems experienced with all the positive trends. What happened in this urban crisis was that whites, and all other races lefts the cities they were living in to go to nicer cities, leaving african americans with cities that weren’t as nice. This lead to racism issues which were sometimes violent and on occasion led to riots.
Another thing that was going on was deindustrialization in the u.s. factories were competing with those outside of the country and these said factories had cheaper costs and were therefore more efficient and effective when it came to production. Ragan’s era started the economy up again and promoted privates sector investments but widened the economic gap and did not help the poor.
The urban crisis still to have been occuring forever. I agree with the baove that during the Great Depression government had an impact on development but after roads adn bridges was built it seem that a grey cloud cover urban cities. The federal goverment was in many eyes as the head of the union and the person that should actually makes changes but with every need government offical it seem that changwes will change on its own. In five town it took a riot before officalsn realize that things needed to be change but know goverment officals didnt feel that a strong ferderal goverment wasnt whast this country needed but a free market. It sounds really good but fail to realize that without the goverment help many citizens will be left on they own will just a few raise to the top. Urban problems isnt something new in American but when more people was moving to the suburbs it seem that many in politcal positions forgot that there is a working class and lower class in America that needs help. The tensiona and separation of whites and blacks didnt make the situation any better. Sincfe many blacks lived in the urban areas many whites didnt see the need of helping since they look at it as a black problem. Help did come through but not in ways that many felt was helpful. America enter way and a recession adn through those times the givernemnt had bigger fish to fry. With the election of Clintion some urban crisis was brought and a fix but not president then and now actually caem up with solutions and alternatives for crime,druhs, high drop out rates, lack of affordable housing, homelessness,and unemloyment. But however our government has realize that it is big enough to bail out the biggest bank because they cant fail will they continue to fail urban residents.
I agree with the comments above. I believe the government was not as effective as it could have been in tackling the financial crises in cities. In 1976 during President Carter’s regime, 542000jobs were lost due to the movement of people and businesses to the suburbs. Carter’s policy initially focused on the revitalization of the urban economy, but soon digressed to granting tax breaks to businesses in poor areas and setting up urban development bank. However his plans failed due to the Congress who were more interested in the suburbs.
As Minara stated President Reagan actually started the regrowth of the economy with the promotion of private sector investments. His policy however was favorable mostly to the wealthy suburbans rather than fix the urban crises. “In 1983 he proposed further cuts of $14billion in welfare, food stamps and child nutrition. An increasingly conservative and Republican Congress readily approved.In 1986, the President deferred funds earmarked for Urban Development Action Grants, the most successful policy of the Carter administration”. (Chudacoff Edition 6 Pg289.
Clinton’s regime in my opinion is the “less of all the evils” as He reformed the welfare bill and reduced taxes which help improve impoverished businesses.
In the 21st century, the horrible 9/11 attacks can be described as a urban crisis. After President Carter, Reagan, and Clinton dud what they could to help the people during their urban crisis (but arguably not enough and not quick enough) the 21st century had a bright outlook when most people thought they were finally getting out of the urban crisis. The economic boom of the 1990’s, race and class conflicts although not gone for the time being it was muted, crimes rates were down and the citizens were feeling safe and confident. The terrorist attacks of both the twin towers and the pentagon along with the widespread blackout of 2003 left the people feeling vulnerable.
President Bush went right into action after these attacks on home soil. Prompting him to make statements right away that we are at war with terrorism. He ordered the invasion of both Afghanistan and then Iraq. He made the public aware to the term Homeland security and gave funds to protect vital structures and services like airport, water supplies, power plants etc. Bush also raised defense budgets and military action around the world to protect the american interests. Bush went on to push Congress to pass more acts like No child left behind.
The battle between the elite, government and the poor will never end. The Great Depression provides an excellent example of the power struggle; elite got rich while trading, buying and selling in an imaginary market and when the S@#! finally hit it the fan the poor felt it the most and federal government had to bail everyone out.
Eventually America sobered up and things got a little brighter but sure enough rain was in the distance. Urban crisis is a word used to describe social as well as economic problems; specifically we are referring to the problems that followed the Post war decades.
The combination of New Deal highways facilitating the “exodus of middle income families”(Chudacoff p296) into suburbs, the displacement of manufacturing jobs that were being outsourced and overall poorly planned and executed legislation created the perfect cocktail for disaster. The poor were left to fend for themselves in empty neighbor hoods plagued with violence. Also as government focus turned away from those that needed it most; cities (Chudacoff p.245) social welfare programs were almost none existent thanks to budget cuts from federal government. To wrap up this short rant; the government and economic elite were not effective in handling the urban crisis, instead of fixing a problem they choose to run from it. We cannot ignore minorities and lower social/economic classes, outsourcing jobs and cutting spending on social welfare is killing the fabric of America.
I agree and disagree with many people on how the government affected the urban crisis. I will be talking about this topic from an economic world view. First and foremost, the urban crisis began primarily in the 1970’s when white Americans moved to suburbs. Communities were in turmoil and there were many economic and political problems to fix. Before the urban crisis, the government was doing a great deal to improve the economy, and by extension, the GDP; as stated by Shayna, they were making roads, highways, and were building a great deal of buildings. The result was a great increase in GDP, an increase which did not fully represent the economy of the time. The result was a spike in the GDP and the economy
Though most people on this blog have been noting the negative aspects to what the government was doing to pull everyone out of the urban crisis, I will be talking about the positive aspects that they have done. As stated by Chudacoff and Jamie, “servicemen returning from the war faced sever housing shortages in cities but found assistance from the expanded federal government” (Chudacoff pg 218). Furthermore, as stated by a couple of my fellow classmates, the government had been spending a great deal of money through trickle-down economics. From an economic standpoint, this is one of the only ways to increase the national GDP and expand the economy. To date, Obama has been using the same policy’s; he is “stimulating” the economy by spending money. Though I believe the government should have done more, they surely attempted to help resolve the problems of the urban crisis – they helped the economy in the long-term, but not the short-term.
I agree with many of the above comments that state that the government did not do enough to help out people during the urban crisis and the recession. The urban crisis occurred started in the 1960’s-1970’s because of “the affluence and high expectations in the postwar decades” (Chudacoff 215). The urban crisis was also affected when many businesses and companies began exporting factories to other countries. It was much cheaper for businesses to move their factories to other countries because of the lack of minimum wage laws in those countries.
I don’t think the government did an adequate job in at-least attempting to prevent businesses from moving to other countries. In the past, the government has acted efficiently in preventing non-american goods from flooding markets. What the government did was they put high taxes on imported goods and less taxes on exported goods. As a result, the government believed this would increase the economy by helping to make more factories, and by extension, jobs. The government, however, did not do much to prevent businesses from moving their FACTORIES to other countries such as China. Walmart as well as many other companies do this to this day. It is cheap, it is efficient, it is “the American way.”
Because of the transition of people to more suburbial locations during the “urban crisis” racial tensions definitely intensified. Whites moved from the urban areas and left blacks along with hispanics with what was left, often described as slums. Because of this segregation, there was no surprise that it would only add to the negative aspect of the urban crisis and the social and economical downfall people were forced to face at that point in time.
I agree with what Anita said about how the “Trickle down” method had a negative affect on the people. Ronald Reagan wasnt being very realistic by thinking that giving to the rich would trickle down to the poor. Like they say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The governemnt dug themselves in a hole and either had lousy ideas to get things back into shape or had no ideas at all. Farazana also states how the government was not attacking the problems, they were letting things slides and consquences were arising from this.
Adding on to the issue of gambling, its interesting to see that gambling was legalized in poor cities by several states, which was referred to as “riverboat”. However afterward they feared that there would be a low return due to the fact that there was a numerous amount of casinos now operating. They felt that consumers who lost money on gambling would cut back on spending. Which meant that for every job legalized by gambling would create a loss of two jobs. However tourism and entertainment would eventually diminish this problem. Many casinos are intertwined with resorts and offer various types of entertainment. So money would then begin to pour into these places, and attract various groups of people.
As we’ve seen throughout this class, the government’s response to crisis doesn’t always solve the situation and at times seem to make matters worse. It seems that many people have concentrated on the ridiculous ideas implemented by Reagan and his idea of “trickle down economics”. As seen in Chudacoff, during the 1980’s, although times became easier for the rich because of Reagan’s deregulation of the banking industry (p.252), the economic status for the blue collar workers of the rust belt cities grew more and more unstable. The intervention of the Reagan administration, although beneficial for the economic elite, left a lasting mark on social and economic division all around the U.S. and was even more apparent in New York City even after Reagan was no longer in office. Government intervention has a history of trying to dig itself out from holes that previous government forces have created and in term create even larger problems. Are we as a country ever going to realize that the interference of the government isn’t always going to be the solution?
When judging the effectiveness and leadership of a government one must make this assessment during times of crises and conflict. It is very easy for a person, or even a group, to act appropriately and seem in control of an easy situation. A person/group’s true character and ability is shown during hardship and disaster. This judgment standard applies directly to the period of “urban crises” discussed in this post.
During post World War II America, there was a time of recovery and rebuilding. To an extent, the war proved to have a positive effect on the American economy. Even though the war created thousands of jobs and GDP increased, there are always countless sacrifices in terms of human casualties that no amount of money or prosperity can bring back. As a nation, the road to recovery after World War II not only brought the United States out of a depression, but it also created many problems.
According to Chudacoff, it was the “affluence and high expectations” that contributed to these “urban crises” (Chudacoff 215). There was a great shift demographically in terms of suburbs and urban living during this time. As a larger number of white citizens traveled and settled in the nearby suburbs, the less fortunate ethnic groups (mainly African Americans) took over the dilapidated slums. Both emotionally and physically, this shift brought on a great deal of racial tension. Just when it seemed as the United States was out of the woods, crises continued to sprout and grow.
BIlls and acts were passed in order to help retard this “one step forward, three step back” motion the United States was sucked into. As the idea of a global economy continued to foster and develop, focus and more importantly funding decreased within city limits. NYC was, for lack of a better phrase, left to fend for itself. If this was any other city, i would have predicted that city fold under the pressure and crises at hand, but NYC rose out of the ashes. Our great city “not only recovered, but reached new heights… in the decades ahead” (Chudacoff 245).
I want to disagree and agree with many of the posts above. Honestly, it’s extremely difficult for us to actually judge an action executed by the government in the past without some form of bias. As students in the 21st century, we are all well aware that they have failed in their plans to solve the urban crisis. However, the problem isn’t so simple from the mindset at the time.
The president of the United States didn’t believe in massive government aid, which is his particular view. Although, we know that it didn’t work out, the base of the American economy lies on the “free market” system. How can we call ourselves a capitalistic society, when we require government intervention time and time again. During the Great Depression, Hoover failed to solve any problems at all. FDR, on the other hand, stepped in and created massive governmental programs. These programs were a tremendous help, but what ultimately led America out of the Great Depression was WWII.
From all this, it’s extremely hard to judge the government’s response to the urban crisis. Had President Jimmy Carter’s methods worked, we would all say how great his policies were. The fact that the government failed makes us all believe that no matter what actions the government took, it’s wrong. That’s the mindset because we can look at the past and realize what worked and what didn’t. So overall, I think the government’s response was inadequate, but at the same time I don’t blame them for it.
By giving wealth to the already-wealthy, under the assumption that that money will “trickle down” to the poor, was a bad decision made by the government. With the injection of wealth into the rich population, that wealth will not be, per se, re-injected into the general economy in that the shifts in the supply and demand of money will work against the poor. The poor just got poorer, whereas the rich got richer. Had the government at the time understood the power of economy, a better alternative would have been implemented.