This article from Washington Post and Emily Badger, (formerly of Atlantic Cities) back in April touched on a seeming weak spot in the war against vehicular violence:
The feeling that reducing the number of automobiles on our streets hurts the poor the most isn't a baseless claim, but the need for automobiles among all socio-economic classes is indicative of a larger intractable problem.
While the Wonkblog piece admits the overlying reasons for this need, to suggest in the short term that there be subsidized automobiles over subsidizing urban environmental health is rash and wrong-headed.
Car dependence is not only a hugely disproportional problem for the poor, it is also a tool used, (if only passively,) by our suburbs to keep them poor and keep them OUT of those suburbs, save for a small number of interchangeable service jobs.
This entry in the article's responses from "ChuckusDaRuckus" is on the mark:
"Everyone knows that to get around in suburban U.S., you have to own a car. That does not mean car ownership is the answer to ending poverty. It means we have a sprawl problem, and the poor are forced to own a car to get to their jobs or the grocery store. There are very few places one can live in the US today and get by without a car.
Unlike older countries, this one was built around the automobile. After WWII, with vets coming home, wanting to start families, middle-class white America started to move out to the suburbs. When they moved, they took their money with them. With money, comes more spending, which attracts more jobs. Also, municipalities can tax that money to improve social services, like schools. In sum, white America took their money and prospertity to the suburbs. And there they remain to this day.
Cars are expensive to buy and maintain. They are an unnecessry expense. They do not house, clothe or feed you. They just get you from point A to B. Let your feet do that. Cars cause smog and global warming. Cars are deadly. Car accidents are the number one killer of teens in the US. Cars make us lazy, and subsequently fat. Now we have an obesity epidemic. Cars suck.
Instead of giving the poor vouchers for cars, here are some radical public policy ideas. We invest in schools in poor urban areas. We promote mixed-use communities that offer walkability and local jobs. We make transit more accessible for these communities so that poor residents do not have to own a car. It costs between $7,000 and $11,000 a year, on average, to own a car. Some families make less than that a year.
There are many causes of poverty. One way to address this issue is by lowering the cost of living for the poor. One does not have to make more money to have a better quality of life. We could continue to force everyone to own a car by continuing to sprawl out. We could also build cities in space and require everyone to own a spaceship to get to work. But neither makes since."
When I was riding the bus from the inner city to the suburbs everyday a few winters ago, most of my neighbors were traveling to minimum wage service jobs in the fast food and chain restaurant industries.
What proportion of that mediocre income would be necessary to maintain a, (most likely,) poor quality automobile instead of a bus pass I can only wonder.
My urban neighborhood is now annoyingly, (for me) gentrified. Among the several benefits I do acknowledge is witnessing a couple of those same neighbors working in the restaurants or other shops that have popped up.
Still not a great job, but perhaps now that it's within walking distance they will have added time to care for their children or perhaps obtain some education, or even 'make connections' that may not be possible in nameless suburban fast food Hell. they will save some money on daily transportation.
Working closer to home can close identity gaps between socio-economic groups both socially and economically, instilling a sense of shared place for all.
Yes Chuckus, the poor need healthy local economies: as do we all.
No comments:
Post a Comment