Gentrification has over the years become a common phenomenon in the United States of America urban setup. Consequently, urban centers are experiences gentrification and brings about a significant change that has positive and negative effects on the people that reside in these areas. It entails a concept in the urban set up whereby more affluent residents join a rather low-income neighborhood causing an increase in rent and general property value (Gottdeiner et al., 2015). These urban areas exist within states of the United States that are governed by the new federal government, referred to as new federalism. This, therefore, means that the new federal government can formulate policies that deal with urban factors such as gentrification. Therefore, it leads to the question of whether the new federalism is enough to overcome urban gentrification. In my opinion, the new federal government cannot overcome urban gentrification though the federal government has the power to create policies that would regulate and possibly prevent gentrification in urban areas. The reasons behind this inability are based upon the jurisdiction of the government on constitutional powers granted to it and the overall gain of the parties involved including the United States state and national governments. The following is my submission as to why I think that new federalism is not sufficient to enable the overcoming of urban gentrification.
Powers of the Federal Government
New federalism entails the National and State governments whose powers are granted under the United States Constitution under Article I, section 8 (Bowman & Kearney, 2017). The powers granted to the federal government by the United States constitution include among other things the regulation of state and interstate trade and commerce. That means that the new federal government can impose policies that would regulate or attempt the prevention of gentrification by preventing or regulating the buying of homes in these low-income neighborhoods (Lees, 2013). However, I understand that new federalism does not have jurisdictional powers according to the constitution to bar any wealthy individual willing to purchase a house in a low-income income neighborhood from doing so. Nevertheless, I think that the best the new federalism can achieve in such a scenario is to create policies that make the residents comfortable enough not to sell their houses. Such a policy would include long term residents’ reduced property taxes. Otherwise, if there would be willing home sellers in a low-income neighborhood, I deduce that gentrification becomes inevitable despite the new federalism government.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cost Benefits Analysis
Urban gentrification brings about positive and negative changes to the communities it affects. The positive changes include; improved security, improved healthcare facilities, enhanced security, better education institutions, renovated streets and parks and even the creation of employment. These are aspects of living that any government wants for its citizens. Also, as the gentrified cities and towns improve in infrastructure the property tax base increases, this positive growth, however, comes at a high cost that may be too expensive for the original residents of the neighborhoods experiencing gentrification; thus a negative effect is brought into effect. This consequently leads to a large-scale displacement of the initial residents of these neighborhoods leading to the need for helpful intervention from an institution such as the government. This is why federalism is looked at as a possible solution to overcome urban gentrification. However, once again, I submit that the new federalism cannot overcome urban gentrification since the merits overweigh the demerits of the concept. The United States federal government has a fundamental function of improving the quality of life for its citizens. Urban gentrification enables the achievement of this function. Also, with the increase in property taxes as a result of gentrification, the federal government gains more tax revenue. The only significant demerit of urban gentrification is displacement which I think is a small price to pay according to the government compared to all the benefits accrued from the process.
In conclusion, even if the new federal government would have the powers to disable urban gentrification (which it does not), it would be in their best interest not to. This is because the cost-benefit analysis in this scenario favors encouraging it: it explains why the government has opted to empower residents in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification to have more control over local development even as the federal government attempts to control housing cost.
References
Gottdiener, M., Budd, L., & Lehtovuori, P. (2015). Key concepts in urban studies . Sage.
Bowman, A. O. M., & Kearney, R. C. (2017). State and local government . Nelson Education.
Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2013). Gentrification . Routledge.
Smith, N., & Williams, P. (Eds.). (2013). Gentrification of the City . Routledge.
