where the sidewalk ends.

It was interesting to me to first read Jane Jacobs' article, and then the responses to it that were posted on here. It shows that anything, even something as mundane and unexciting as a sidewalk, can stir up controversy. Of course, exciting or not, sidewalks are important things that can alter the atmosphere of a city or town, they can make the difference between a walk down the street being a pleasant, relaxed stroll or a tense walk home full of suspicion and the worry that your wallet will be missing when you arrive at your destination. I grew up in an extremely safe suburban town, but the neighborhood I lived in until a few months ago had no sidewalks or streetlights. Even though almost every resident on my street was over the age of 70 or otherwise completely harmless, walking down the street at night was always a slightly creepy and uncomfortable experience. I enjoy taking solitary late-night walks, but having to trudge through neighbor's yards on the pitch-black street often made me nervous enough to head home early. At the beginning of this year, my family moved to a new house in the same town. It's only a few streets down from my old house, but the street I live on now has sidewalks in perfect condition and is well-lit at night. My walks have become much more pleasant and I feel much safer in my new neighborhood. Such a small thing as a strip of even concrete and a few well-placed streetlights give my new street a much homier and more comfortable feeling. It's also encouraging to see all the other people out walking their dogs or strolling down the street-- as Jacobs pointed out, a well-used street almost always feels safer than one that is deserted.
Murphy Davis's article addressed the difficult moral issue of rearranging public spaces to discourage homeless people from staying there. It is somewhat appalling that after the difficult lives homeless people live, devoid of the comforts and pleasures that everyone else takes completely for granted, the more well-off can't even condescend to allow them to sleep in our parks. On the other hand, however, most more fortunate people are frightened or made uncomfortable by sharing their space with the homeless. This is an unfortunate prejudice, but not entirely unbased-- the lives of the homeless are very different from ours, and desperation often leads people to commit acts that they wouldn't normally do. If someone was made uncomfortable enough to be in a park where there were always bums sleeping on the benches, they would probably choose not to go there, and so they would effectively be driven out much as the city chose to drive out the homeless. So basically, the problem isn't that we don't want the homeless to sleep in our parks, it's that they are forced to sleep there in the first place. Rather than simply forcing them to leave and hoping that they will go away and not attract the attention of the wealthy, white businesspeople that the city wishes to see frequenting the parks, the government needs to take positive action towards providing the homeless a better place to go, which would improve the lives of everyone concerned.