the readings

I have to admit, the readings interested me only somewhat. I will begin with the first one, "Woodruff Park." I can understand the authors disdain for the governmental process in which the refurbishment of this park was voted on, apperantly without consent of the public. I can understand this for many reasons, including the fact that I'm young, erroneos, and believe I know everything and can indeed run the established government with more ease than those doing it at the moment (albeit they are doing a horrible job). And I understand it on the same level, again because I'm young, and the mojority of wrongs done to a person, I believe, by the government is when they are young. Government meaning anything from parents, school, police, to D.C.

But that does not give any real example of the wrongings done to these people by the refurbishment. Sure, maybe from history one could pull examples of racism in the culture and city, but to adhere to that idea today and proclaim that the beautifying of a park was in fact a way to rid the city of winos and homeless is completely baseless. The fact that these people are homeless is for a combination of reasons, a complex variety of mistakes on there part and wrongs done to them, to purely say because the park was made "nicer" they no longer can sleep there. Well the question is did you really want them sleeping there? I think the truth is really that while they were there, the person was most likely disgusted by the fact that they were there, but once they had to move, all of a sudden a persons liberties are being forced away, an autocratic govt. is taking shape and the common man must fight it. Its just a way for the people to get excited and fight for what is "right."

I do agree though, with the fact that the Olympic site in Atlanta was garrish and ill planned. Indeed, why is the populations of the "transient Olympic visitors more important than the homes for the people of Atlanta." That is a fact that troubles me every summer when the Olympics are set up in a city. The sad truth is that the cities govt. does push out the less wanted society living in the city. Instead of helping the less fortunate, the govt. pushes them away, hides them in the back alleys of the "dangerous streets". Well the only reason the streets are dangerous are because that is how we make them out to be.

Which brings me to the second reading. "The Uses of Sidewalks-Safety" interested me a great deal, because for 13 years, I did live in a city. Paterson, NJ, one of the largest cities in NJ, and consequently a dubious 15 minutes outside of The City, is where I grew up. I can certainly sympathise with the author here. The danger and safety of the streets completely depends upon the persons within. Noone for instance, on my street growing up, raised a finger to dial 911 while my neighbor was being murdered, and everyone on the street knew what was happening. Nobody on my street stopped me from throwing rocks at squirills on the telephone lines, consequently throwing a rock through a sun room in a living room down the road.

It all depends upon the people. Not only that, but the idea that a less frequented street is more dangerous is completely rediculous. Some of the safer streets in Paterson, The City, and Newark are the one less frequented. The idea that an empty street could imply out of sight watchers generally scares people away, including those willing to do harm. Its more dangerous to walk a deserted street, by oneself, in the middle of the night when it is known that the more villinous are more capable of killing or robbing in the dead of the night. It is safe to assume that at night in the city, one is not going to come when help is called for, for fear of ones own life. hence, no 911 call to the dying man next door.

This is getting long, and I'm done. These are just a few of my opinions related to the stories we had to read, maybe we'll read this, maybe not. Either way, this is what I think.