Urban revitalization / by kevin murray

There are plenty of urban areas in major cities in need of revitalization, of which, ideally done, this can be done in a way to benefit the people and to specifically benefit the poorest and most disadvantaged that live in those decaying communities and areas.  However, in many cases, private enterprise, banking enterprises, court systems, and specific governmental agencies, don't see the poor and disadvantaged that live in urban blight as people to be helped and aided in a responsible way, but rather see these people, that are often without an effective voice, as people of no consequence and therefore to be discarded, whether voluntarily or through court action; so that these areas of the community can then be reclaimed not as places of safety and opportunity for those that have been the denizens of them, but rather to be for those that have taken them, and for the benefit of those particular people that have displaced the  poor and themselves are the beneficiaries from the monies spent and from the noticeable improvements and revitalization of that community.


After all, when those in the know, consider urban blight and the remediation of this, they look upon what they desire to accomplish as being far easier to accomplish, if the people that will be noticeably impacted, have no voice, and therefore will not have the ready capacity to stall such progress via civil action or lawsuits.  That is to say, urban areas are carefully and minutely studied, in a manner in which those that wish to redevelop it are not interested in having to deal with situations in which they will have to overcome a lot of community protests or people "pushback" and will definitely amend their plans in such a manner so that those that are least able to fight back, are the ones that will be specifically targeted, and in particular, they prefer to deal with areas of urban blight in which the voice of people have either been completely or nearly completely compromised or of no consequence.


Not too surprisingly, more often than not, it is the poor people and typically minorities that are thereby forced from and evicted from their homes and communities, so that the "necessary" progress of the community can be made, all of which has been sold to the general public as a necessary action in order to bring change, as well as being a requisite for the greater good.  After all, the renewal and the revitalization of areas previously suffering from urban decay and hopelessness, and replacing such with the modernity of awesome infrastructure easily appears to be the type of community improvement that most everyone would agree is good. 


However, the displacement of real people and community businesses that have been historically denied everything, but have nevertheless stayed the course, and to thereby provide these with nothing in return, except for minimal promises and anemic commitments, means exactly what it appears to mean, which is the deliberate taking from those that have nothing, and the forceful removal of these people via a trail of tears into some other area of blight and hopelessness; so that those  that take over the revitalized urban area, are the true beneficiaries of such, and those that were its erstwhile residents, are cast aside as so much wretched refuse, not worthy of consideration or concern.