- In general, the ideal here is: the shared, public aspects of poor neighborhoods should not be worse than they are in wealthy ones.
- The solutions to these problems aren't necessarily straighforward or directly achievable in every situation.
- Sometimes solving these problems would create others, and so balance must always be considered.
- Using brute force and fiat regulation to attempt to correct these things is likely not the best approach.
- NEVERTHELESS, these are ideals that we should reach for.
- Pollution should not be higher in poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones.
- City Code and Civil Engineering can have unintented negative impacts that can disproportionately affect lower-income residents.
In order for children growing up in poorer areas to have an equal chance at elevating their own economic opportunities, they must have access to the same baseline standard of public education resources as their wealthier peers.
- The quality and funding for schools should not differ based on the economics of the surrounding area.
- Using property taxes assessed in the surrounding area to fund local schools is a particularly egregious practice.
- It was likely well-intended, and seems to make sense on the surface level. Each area being responsible for funding its own local schools sounds like a reasonable idea. It might even be thought of as empowering, depending on your viewpoint:
- Local communities (ostensibly) have agency and control over the educational infrastructure in their area, and can make their own choices at the local level about allocation of funds, teacher salaries, educational standards, curriculum, etc.
- However, it also has major drawbacks:
- Since poorer areas by definition have less money to go around overall, they have less money to invest in the education of children who grow up there. No amount of decision-making control over allocation of funds can change that.