The Importance of Poetic Economics (If we absolutely must discuss economics)
When I requested placement in this semester’s economics class as a natural next step to my work in
investment banking and hedge fund management with Beau, I was reminded of how little I knew about
economics, how much I had been faking it through our meetings. Beau and I and other investors have
made concerted effort to invest only in firms we deem morally sound while also aiming to earn a profit.
This means no oil, no globalization, mainly green energy and health care. Such a standard has been easy
enough for our group to uphold, but it is clear why holdings in oil or pesticides would be increasingly
tempting had our main objective been to make a profit. The market does not reward morality,
environmentalism, or a guilty conscious. In all its amoral glory, the market works toward its singular goal
of allocating its resources to make the most money. In today’s climate, it is easy to consider the market
immoral for all its lack of sympathy.
investment banking and hedge fund management with Beau, I was reminded of how little I knew about
economics, how much I had been faking it through our meetings. Beau and I and other investors have
made concerted effort to invest only in firms we deem morally sound while also aiming to earn a profit.
This means no oil, no globalization, mainly green energy and health care. Such a standard has been easy
enough for our group to uphold, but it is clear why holdings in oil or pesticides would be increasingly
tempting had our main objective been to make a profit. The market does not reward morality,
environmentalism, or a guilty conscious. In all its amoral glory, the market works toward its singular goal
of allocating its resources to make the most money. In today’s climate, it is easy to consider the market
immoral for all its lack of sympathy.
But for a non-moral system, economics often make broad assumptions about human tendencies.
Dry mathematics and statistics and monetary incentives are what we use to reason economically, but what
we reason about is the human experience. In its assumption that all humans act in their own best self-interest,
economics are reckoning with greed and selfishness. In its acknowledgement that this is a generalization,
economics are acknowledging altruism and human kindness. The economist, in this light, does not seem
far removed from the poet, whose job it is to capture and interrogate human emotion for an answer.
Gentrification could be plain and statistical, but we, as economists and as poets, know better than that.
Gentrification is the intersection of economic incentive and human struggle.
Dry mathematics and statistics and monetary incentives are what we use to reason economically, but what
we reason about is the human experience. In its assumption that all humans act in their own best self-interest,
economics are reckoning with greed and selfishness. In its acknowledgement that this is a generalization,
economics are acknowledging altruism and human kindness. The economist, in this light, does not seem
far removed from the poet, whose job it is to capture and interrogate human emotion for an answer.
Gentrification could be plain and statistical, but we, as economists and as poets, know better than that.
Gentrification is the intersection of economic incentive and human struggle.
Politicians and other spokespeople don’t generally frame gentrification as a question of ethics.
Often times it is a consideration of economic “improvement.” Economists especially tend to assess
neighborhood transition in monetary terms: median household income will increase, which in turn
increases cash flow to local businesses, the neighborhood will see more economic investment over time,
etc. Economic disadvantages to gentrification (job loss, displacement) are forgiven in the name of job
creation promised in the long term. In the Los Angeles Times article we read for homework “A Dream
Displaced,” commercial real estate agent Steve Kasten asks “if [gentrification] changes the makeup of the
community … should you stop it? How can you? That’s free enterprise, and the marketplace dictates what
people want.” The market does not care about white supremacy or about redlining. But who is driving
the market?
Often times it is a consideration of economic “improvement.” Economists especially tend to assess
neighborhood transition in monetary terms: median household income will increase, which in turn
increases cash flow to local businesses, the neighborhood will see more economic investment over time,
etc. Economic disadvantages to gentrification (job loss, displacement) are forgiven in the name of job
creation promised in the long term. In the Los Angeles Times article we read for homework “A Dream
Displaced,” commercial real estate agent Steve Kasten asks “if [gentrification] changes the makeup of the
community … should you stop it? How can you? That’s free enterprise, and the marketplace dictates what
people want.” The market does not care about white supremacy or about redlining. But who is driving
the market?
It is the tendency of conversations about gentrification to dismiss human experience on both sides in favor
of an economic model with dehumanized pawns at the mercy of the market. How have our texts so far
breathed life back into the story of gentrification? How have our readings sterilized the experience? If
you have in some way furthered gentrification in Los Angeles, to what extent did you feel like an inevitable
cog in the market rather than a cognizant individual? What do you think are the dangers of the “change is
inevitable” mindset? Are there any (human) benefits?
of an economic model with dehumanized pawns at the mercy of the market. How have our texts so far
breathed life back into the story of gentrification? How have our readings sterilized the experience? If
you have in some way furthered gentrification in Los Angeles, to what extent did you feel like an inevitable
cog in the market rather than a cognizant individual? What do you think are the dangers of the “change is
inevitable” mindset? Are there any (human) benefits?
Our capitalist society focuses on the monetary means of existing. We tend to look at things through a removed, robotic method of thinking. However, through our assigned reading, we have become exposed to human tragedies. I think a perfect example is through the “evil” Gentrifier, David, in “I Didn’t Want to Evict You” from There Goes the Neighborhood. After hearing multiple stories of how he has evicted multiple people from their homes and that he is often times called a “racist, capitalist piece of trash,” we learn later that when David was 17 years old, he got evicted from his apartment. Hearing the blatant crack in David’s voice as he starts to reveal his tragic experience quickly re-humanizes the man, turning him from a stone cold gentrifier into someone who is just trying to survive. I just find it interesting that he chose to go into real estate instead of choosing something different for his profession. On the other hand, some articles have sterilized the experience due to the raging statistics and plain facts that make up these articles. Rather than focusing on the effect of various individuals through the gentrification of certain areas, articles like “Study: Los Angeles Neighborhoods Are Re-Segregating” analyze the population as one. By grouping large amounts of people into one statistic, we lose crucial perspectives on unique experiences. Having the “change is inevitable” mindset diminishes our ability to step back and think before creating change. We have to think about not only the economic benefits but also who these individuals are that we are affecting as well as the poor economic and racial diversification that is being created.
ReplyDeleteGentrification really is a system with the sole goal of individual profit, which seems like a good thing, but it’s apparent that this profit often comes at the cost of other individuals. For me, our urban lab on Thursday was an interesting way to give more perspective to our class’s study of gentrification. I think my observations as well as my interactions with people allowed me to understand gentrification differently than I previously had and inspired me to ask more questions about it. The large amount of government vehicles I saw on my street corner made me think about ways the government is involved in gentrification and why there would be such a heavy government presence in a place that’s being ‘rebuilt’ for a younger, more well-off population by real estate developers.
ReplyDeleteWe saw in one of the podcasts from last week that some who move into newly gentrified areas feel guilty about their decisions to move once they know the greater impact on the communities they are potentially displacing. Picking out the ethical decision in the scenario of gentrification is extremely difficult, because if families didn’t move based on changing value of homes and property, there would never be development or progress within different communities; everything would stay the same. However, the obvious flaw of the system is that working class families always suffer the consequences.
Many Americans tend to only focus on how something will benefit themselves rather than taking the time to analyze if that action could negatively affect someone else. Stories, just like the ones in many of our texts, promote humanity. Once more people hear these stories there is a greater probability they will think twice before carrying out an action that could negatively affect many people. In the “A Dream Displaced” article about gentrification, the story of Fidela Villasano was highlighted. Villasano, age 89, had lived in her house in Lincoln Heights for 55 years until she was forced out by the new owner. Naturally her daily routines of going to McDonalds in the morning for coffee, chatting with her friends, taking care of the grapevine she planted, and attending Sacred Heart Church on Sunday were all in Lincoln Heights. It was heart wrenching to hear how after she was forced out of her home, she would make her way to Lincoln Heights to do her routines. Villasano says, “I don’t have anywhere to go. I want to stay where I am.” My heart aches for her because it must be so difficult to leave your home of 55 years where so many happy memories were made.
ReplyDeleteI think that when our readings fail to incorporate stories and instead use numbers to describe gentrification, they become sterile. Stories can create empathy and solidarity, but numbers cannot. The dangerous “change is inevitable” mindset fails to recognize and value the lives of so many Angelinos. When the “change is inevitable” mindset is used, it minimizes the lives, opinions, and feelings of the people already living in that area. Gentrification has monetary benefits for the developers, but severely and negativley impacts the lives of many Angelinos.
I think that a prominent “buzz word” that is used frequently in the conversations we have about gentrification is “housing.” We’ve talked a considerable amount about housing (whether directly or indirectly) in City of Angels so far, but after reading Lucy’s post about the frequent absence of humanity across the board within the gentrification debate, I now am thinking about housing, specifically housing in Los Angeles, through a very different lens. I’m thinking about Fidela Villasano and her painful story that was documented in the Los Angeles Times’ “A Dream Displaced,” a special feature on Lincoln Heights and, in particular, the impact of today’s “upgrading” culture on the neighborhood’s longtime residents. When it comes to the topic of housing, there is a frightening schism that separates the people inside the house from the people outside the house. These “people inside the house” are the living, breathing individuals who call some four walls and a roof their home. In Villasano’s case, her concept of home extends beyond the walls of her Lincoln Heights bungalow into “daily [walks] to McDonald’s for morning coffee, afternoon chats with a friend in the courtyard, tending the grapevine she planted decades ago, her Sunday trek to Sacred Heart Church.” However, these “people outside the house” — developers, real estate agents, wealthier prospective tenants — do not have any of the memories, feelings, or emotions tied to the bungalow and the surrounding neighborhood that Villasano has and will always have. These “people outside the house” see everything as physical, tangible, attainable, and profitable, while Villasano doesn’t see at all — she feels. Because of this deep connection she has with her home, it is clear, as a reader, that it hurt her to “[watch] workers pull out a bathroom sink and drawers from her longtime home [and toss] them in a trash pile.” “A Dream Displaced,” specifically in its second chapter, “Gentrification,” reminds us that you can take a human out of a home, but you can’t take a home out of a human. I think something that takes the humanity out of the housing conversation, especially in LA, is the constant focus on money and rent and cost. Money is certainly an enormous factor that must be taken into consideration when discussing housing and gentrification, but what frustrates me is that in LA, the more money you have, the more deserving you are of a home. This was consistently apparent in the “There Goes the Neighborhood” podcasts we listened to, where poorer tenants were kicked out to let their wealthier counterparts in (and usually there was a period of elaborate renovation in between this transition to make the home even nicer). I’m not sure how I feel about my own relationship and involvement with gentrification. I think that it is difficult not to contribute to gentrification when you live in Silver Lake today. Ten years ago it probably was easier to only shop at longtime family-owned establishments and/or local small businesses, but now, it is hard to find any place in Silver Lake that isn’t a chain or soon-to-be-chain. Overall though, I would say that I do feel as though I am “an inevitable cog in the market” due to mere helplessness given my circumstances. Don’t get me wrong though; the “change is inevitable” mindset is incredibly dangerous in the context of gentrification. To me, this laissez-faire doctrine is basically the same thing as watching a lion devour a herd of gazelles. It’s today’s toxic combination of not-knowing-how-to-help and knowing-how-to-help-but-not-wanting-to, and in my opinion, the only humans that are helped by this mindset are the “people outside the house.”
ReplyDeleteI believe the goal of a developer involved in gentrifying a city is to make as much money as possible. I’d like to think that developers use a cost-benefit analysis (and some probably do), but many developers think with the selfish mindset of “the ends justify the means.” The ends are the bags of cash and the means are the people who were displaced, lost their job, or lost their livelihood. A large part of the issue comes from a lack of communication between the developers and the people living in the neighborhoods that the developer is eyeing. If the developer does not get to know the person and the person does not get to know the developer, it is harder for one side to understand the other side of the story. You will never know what someone else’s life is like until you walk in their shoes. For example, in the episode “I Didn’t Want to Evict You” from the There Goes the Neighborhood podcast series, Maria Santa Cruz and her husband and David the developer exchange many heated words, but no one takes the time to learn about each other’s circumstances. Especially for a developer who is potentially displacing people who have spent their lives in that spot, you must get to know the tenant in order to truly understand the effects of your decision. Something that I have learned outside of this class that I believe applies to developers too is the Belmont Report in psychology. The Belmont Report states three basic principles that all research involving human subjects must follow. The three principles are respect for persons, beneficence (minimize risks and maximize benefits), and justice (distribute benefits and risks equally to participants without prejudice toward individuals or groups). I believe that developers must respect the people already living/interacting in a neighborhood, they must minimize the detriments and maximize the benefits, and they must treat all people involved in the developing process equally.
ReplyDeleteOur texts have done an extraordinary job of breathing life back in the story of gentrification. An important piece of their effectiveness is that they present both sides of gentrification and offer many new perspectives. Moreover, when our texts provide us with raw stories from people undergoing gentrification it is a lot easier to make connections and sympathize with the people who are getting kicked out of their homes and the people trying to make a living. I don’t necessarily think our texts have sterilized the experience of gentrification, but I would say they have made gentrification out to be a commonality in Los Angeles when reality displays that the majority of Los Angles neighborhoods have no undergone it. However, gentrification is rapidly sweeping through Los Angeles, and by the time we are all adults the number of gentrified neighborhoods will be much greater. It is extremely dangerous to have the mindset of change is inevitable because you dehumanize the issue of gentrification and provide an excuse for people to do whatever they want for their financial gain. For example, “change is inevitable” was likely the excuse used during the early 1900s when we carelessly ravished the natural American environment. Although the United States was urbanizing, it was still necessary to limit this urbanization because we would soon find out that preserving nature is important. Perhaps these events should be taken into account, because who knows all the problems that will arise if the whole of LA becomes gentrified.
ReplyDeleteWhile talking about gentrification and its causes and effects in class, our urban lab helped me understand and put into perspective the issues of gentrification. I was dropped off at a corner next to Chinatown where I immediately witnessed forms of gentrification. This area of Los Angeles is gaining popularity amongst high income and predominantly white individuals, thus making it increasingly difficult for the people who were already living there to remain there. Along with this, buildings were being renovated and the park, which was located across the street from our corner, was also renovated to look nicer. The renovation and “revitalization” of this area clearly showed me how gentrification works and the true evil behind it. Along with a new understanding of gentrification, our lab and the articles we have read allowed me to understand that there are very few solutions to counter it, due to gentrification being tied to human greed. Every person wants to live a more luxurious and better life and because of this, people will not stop moving into previously “unfavorable” neighborhoods if they believe it is in their best interest.
ReplyDeleteThe prompt brings up an excellent point discussing the lenses with which we study contemporary issues such as gentrification: while we can simply analyze economics with mathematics, statistics, and incentives, we can (and should) also look at the situation from the perspectives of the people living it. Our texts and readings have enhanced and richened our understandings of gentrifications effects (both positive and negative) with the first hand accounts of what gentrification does to a city, a neighborhood, a family, and an individual. Only through these new found understandings can we begin to appreciate the complexities of the issue, and how that interacts with the lives of the residents trying to survive. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any glaring actions I have made to contribute to gentrification in Los Angeles, save for a couple of Starbucks Cold Brews on my way to take practice ACTs on Doheny in Beverly Hills. However, I feel as though a significant portion of the people buying properties in these gentrified neighborhoods do not do so maliciously, but out of their own self interest. I wonder how often people buying these properties consider the effects their actions will have on existing residents? I think the most glaring danger with the "change is inevitable" mindset is that it can cause people to forget about whether the inevitable change is beneficial for the people experiencing it. I believe this mindset forces us to falsely assume that there is nothing we can do to alter economic outcomes. Instead, we should be constantly on the search for ways to help people elevate their own economic status, standard of living, and therefore their quality of life.
ReplyDeleteI think the podcasts that we listened to, especially the episode "I Didn't Want to Evict You", were effective in humanizing both sides to the gentrification issue. I feel like very few people really want to sympathize with the gentrifiers / developers, because more often than not we hear about the lives of the evicted and the displaced who must now struggle to find somewhere safe to live. After hearing the point of view of the tenants in that episode, I still felt my instinctual anti-establishment roots very strongly, especially as someone who has been a victim of development and has lost my housing, granted in a more stable way. However, I think that we do have to take into account that developers aren't doing what they're doing for the sole purpose of being evil and malicious. In fact, I think very few of them think of themselves in that light. I think because gentrification can bring such immense economic gain to those in power, it seems like evicting tenants, raising rents, and essentially renovating entire neighborhoods, the idea of potential wealth can cause people to become morally blind (ish). My guess is that if people were offered money to kick families out of their homes and onto the streets, they probably wouldn't accept. But if the idea of monetary gain is presented in terms of "renewing housing" and "upgrading a neighborhood", many would have no issue with that. A combination of the effects of money and how options are presented to people can definitely have morally blinding effects.
ReplyDeleteBefore this class, I experienced gentrification as an abstract concept rather than a concrete phenomenon. It was a term that was tossed around in the context of urban cities and characterized as some evil, yet ambiguous force that must be stopped. However, since I have been in this class (some 14 days now) I can say that some light has been shed on this previously unknown phenomenon. This illumination can be attributed to our assigned texts, podcasts, and our experience with urban labs. Through these experiences, I have discovered a dichotomy. Obviously there is a divide between how people perceive and approach gentrification, but the juxtaposition to which I am referring is the way in which gentrification is discussed. I have found that there are two main categories into which descriptions of gentrification fall. On one side is the statistical data and analysis: population numbers, rent rates, mass movement, new businesses. On the other side is individual storytelling: one person and their experience with gentrification. On the quantitative side, we have articles like “Racially Diverse Neighborhoods Undergoing Re-Segregation” produced by American University, and on the more personal side we have podcasts like “I Didn’t Want to Evict You.” Both have their strengths and weaknesses. However, I believe that the statistical approach sterilizes the process of gentrification by dehumanizing its victims and giving power to those who drive urban change in the hopes of making a profit. It is individual stories of people and their families that humanize gentrification; gives it a name, a face, and subsequently makes us feel, more wholly, its sometimes devastating effects. It is this specific storytelling that works to combat the “economic model with dehumanized models at the mercy of the market.” As a result, I think the only way to approach gentrification is through the lens of human experience and struggle.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt in my mind that I, at some point, have contributed to gentrification in Los Angeles; I could not assume that I have had no part in the changing landscape of LA. However, I also believe that the “change is inevitable” mindset is a cop-out. We convince ourselves there is nothing we can do, so we don't feel guilty when we don't do anything. It allows us to justify our questionable choices by allowing us to think that it was no choice at all. It is easy to pretend that we don’t have an impact when we are not cognizant of all of the intricacies and nuances of Los Angeles. However, I think we owe it to our ever-changing city to try our best to educate ourselves, defend what we believe in, and not give in to the idea that there is nothing we can do.
Over the course of this class, we have been able to develop a much more comprehensive understanding of what gentrification is, what it looks like, and what the perspectives of each side are like. While reading "Twilight", we gained a more clear view of the paradox within Los Angeles: the city is both encompassing of countless cultures, acting as a melting pot, but at the same time does not demonstrate many signs of integration between those cultures. During our urban lab, we were able to witness the stark contrast between the development of certain regions of LA. Right beside Chinatown, a neighborhood bustling with tourists, was Mission Junction. Immediately put at a disadvantage by being surrounded by freeways, Mission Junction clearly displayed signs of an Industrial region with the only sign of gentrification being a new bar. Although Mission Junction was not in the best area (because of the geographical limitations caused by the freeways), some might say any lower-class neighborhood in a good area is doomed to be gentrified. This perspective, although true in some ways, blinds people from feeling any emotion towards the displacement of working class families. The "change is inevitable mindset" is built off of valid history, but it also cedes any hope for the working class community. This mindset is based off of the belief that it is part of "the system" for low income families to be displaced constantly and have to move farther and farther from Los Angeles, and it is unfair.
ReplyDeleteI believe the three podcasts episode we listened to did a very good job at “breathing life back into the story of gentrification.” The three podcasts provided interviews and stories of people who were directly affected by gentrification, but they also included interviews with people who benefitted from gentrification. Obviously, the majority of people will sympathize with those who are kicked out of their homes due to gentrification, but the developers of gentrified neighborhoods are simply trying to make a living as well. I also believe some of the articles we have read have sterilized gentrification by either presenting only one side of the story or by only including statistics. I think that I have furthered gentrification in Los Angles by supporting popular stores in gentrified areas, like Golf Le Fleur on Fairfax. Having the “change is inevitable” mindset can lead to constant gentrification without any preservation of important cultural landmarks,
ReplyDeleteMy scope of gentrification has far expanded any of my prior knowledge/understanding of it. Instead of solely focusing on the housing aspect of gentrification, City of Angels has exposed me to gentrification in neighborhoods as a whole. When sitting on the street corner in Highland Park for the urban lab last Thursday, I encountered the stark contrast between the white middle/upper class and the lower/middle class minority. Split in half, one side of Figueroa had the romanticized version of the middle class with a vintage shop named "the Bearded Beagle", a hip restaurant called "Hippo", and a cute cafe which name I forget. On the side I was standing on, their was "Tommy and Son's Tire Repair Shop", a rundown hair salon titled "Iris's", and an average nail salon called "Heidi's Nails". My learnings on gentrification have also benefitted from the readings in class where I was enlightened by the three podcasts assigned to us as homework. Never before had I understood the relation between a tenant and a landlord. Also, I never realized how many rights of tenants were being violated by their landlords. It is truly appalling how landlords abuse their power without expressing any empathy towards their tenants. While I can't think of specific times when I've been an oblivious supporter of gentrification (because I believe that I have been one too many times to count), I can recall an instance when I told my parents about how I was going to purchase a beautiful apartment in a gorgeous apartment complex that just happened to be in a gentrified neighborhood. I was only about twelve at the time, so I had little understanding of the negative aspects of that apartment complex which I was gawking over. I have learned sense. Don't worry!
ReplyDeletebtw: the podcasts were not readings. I did not mean to say readings.
DeleteIn my opinion, those driving the wave of gentrification are very focused on their own benefit and clearly not taking into account the effects on the lives of many lower class people they are creating. During our discussions, some fellow classmates have brought up the point that "those who are gentrifying also have families to feed." While this may be very true, it is not right to support your family at such an expense of other families. So many families that are displaced due to gentrification are of color, immigrants, who are pushed out by often wealthy white developers, and have nowhere to go. This is how problems such as homelessness (in this city and country) arise, and we end up with too many people, and not enough resources/affordable housing for them. I live in Atwater Village, which for the longest time was a not very pleasant, mainly Hispanic area. As time went on, I witnessed the village open new cafés, yoga studios, and more "hipster/trendy" shops, as well as many houses redone and sold at much higher prices. While this was great and fun to see my neighborhood become more expensive and hip, I always wondered what was happening to the small bussinesses that had stood there for so long, serving the past community in Atwater, and what was happening to our community. Where was everyone going? I still don't know the answer to this, but these conversations on gentrification in this class have opened my eyes to this more, and I hope to do more research on this topic.
ReplyDeleteAs for breathing life back into gentrification’s story, I think the podcasts we listened to did an excellent job of humanizing the very real experiences that people went through and continue to go through in our own city. Reading articles is one thing, but listening to interviews and being able to hear people’s real emotions while they’re speaking uncovers a new level to the story. It forces us, as “poetic economists”, to leave the objective economist side behind for a moment while we listen to the experiences of real humans. The podcasts created the characters into something beyond just a statistic in a newspaper article. But at the same time, I feel that some of the articles we read, and even some of the interviewees in the podcasts, just as effectively ignored the humanity in the story altogether. They reduced the people into numbers—a purely economist point of view. There’s an importance to the art of finding the balance between poet and economist that I think few have realized, let alone mastered. I think that if one has ever purchased something from a new, trendy shop or restaurant, it means that they have participated in furthering gentrification in LA. So yes, I am guilty. At the time, I was aware loosely of what gentrification meant, but had no idea what the real repercussions of it were from my Altadena/Pasadena point of view. I was definitely an “inevitable cog in the market.” Now, however, I think that I will be much more aware of my role in gentrification when I give business to the cute shops that pop up from time to time locally. I do find truth in the “change is inevitable” mindset because society can’t progress without change happening, but one of the largest dangers is being unaware of who or what the changes negatively affect. It may seem like there is an overall positive effect on the neighborhood, but there are often overlooked, purposefully or not I’m not sure, aspects that undoubtedly hurt more people than it helps. Whatever promises are made are often empty and left to be never be fulfilled.
ReplyDeleteI for one, was not fully aware of the gentrification which is occurring within our own city. The podcasts were extremely insightful in that they brought human experience into a subject which is usually dominated by numbers and statistics. "There Goes the Neighborhood" was able to shed new light on gentrification and community changes within Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to economics, a main concept is supply and demand which is briefly discussed in the podcast. Most individuals and corporations involved in real estate take the easy way out and gravitate toward numbers to represent demand instead of understanding the area of development and the wants of that specific community. Because of this, communities change with the introduction of new developments or the pushing out of the old supply to attract new demand. While gentrification in theory should "better" the community, it instead erases and replaces. Without paying attention to the human impact of economic decisions, people and companies opt for a quick buck instead of making a genuine attempt to improve a community aesthetically while also improving the lives within.