Week Five- Last Blog!

                After watching “23 ½ Hours,” I would propose that the policy we use to help America’s declining health be Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move program, and other programs similar to it. Mike Evans made a very convincing argument in his lecture filled with countless facts from reliable sources, which makes it clear to me that the best thing we can do for our health is exercise. Because exercise has been shown to be so vital to our health, I think that exercise is the best thing to focus on in a policy meant to bring about change in the health of America. This would also be a much easier policy to create and implement because almost all people agree that exercise should be encouraged. Another policy aimed at health that instead focused on trying to limit consumption of sugar filled beverages or fast food would not be successful because people do not like to be told what they can and cannot eat. We cannot force people to stop eating fast food, but we can encourage them to get up and move. For many people, just making one simple life change like walking for 30 minutes a day can affect other aspects of their lives as well, and before we know it, people may start choosing to eat healthier on their own. By focusing on exercise, we can merely tell people the facts and show them how easy it is to make a change by doing simple things such as taking the stairs or walking to work.

                I think that the government should be involved in promoting healthier habits, should never try to impose or enforce any kind of rules about exercising. As we live in a free country, the government really can’t force American citizens to do exercise every day, but the government can still help the country to get healthier by teaching children about the lifelong benefits of exercise in school, as well as offering a physical education class to children every day, and by making information on exercise and health easier to understand and widespread. The Let’s Move program has already done a great job at promoting children and their parents to get in some exercise every day through play, but I think that for it to be most effective, there needs to be a much bigger effort on the marketing front. If the government really wants American citizens to be healthier and start exercising, they need to hold more events that encourage people to move, but ads on TV that tout the benefits of exercise, and make information readily available for anyone that wants to learn more, such as through fliers or public service announcements. The government can make a significant change, but government officials must let the American people change themselves, and only give them a nudge in the right direction.

                Ever since the Affordable Healthcare Act was proposed, the American people have had split opinions on whether it would help our nation or harm it. Right from the start, there have been many concerns over whether this was the right thing to do. According to the Urban Institute “if federal reform efforts fail, over the next decade, the percent of the population that is uninsured will increase, employer-sponsored coverage will continue to erode, spending on public programs will balloon, and individual and family out of pocket costs will rise.” This is a very scary future to look forward to if the Healthcare Act is to fail. However, there is a possibility that it will succeed and do great things for our nation. After reading the articles, I would say that most concerns with the policy’s implementation align with economic factors. What people are most concerned with now is how things will affect our already unstable economy. A good move could pull us back into prosperity, and a bad one could throw us into another depression. These are all very valid concerns to have, but no one seems to be focused on the health factor. The economy is very important, but this policy is meant to help people get healthy and stay healthy. I suppose that only time will tell as to whether the Affordable Healthcare Act will do more damage or good, but hopefully more good things will come than bad.

Week Four

              For this blog I have decided to talk about economic development in Pearland, Texas. The strengths of Pearland from an economic development perspective are numerous. The biggest factor that I saw was the available land. Pearland has quite a lot of open land that can be developed into anything to suit a business’ needs. I thought this was a huge advantage over a city such as Tempe, where there are only a few parcels of open land, and no room to expand because Tempe is surrounded by more city in every direction. The abundance of open land in Pearland would also bring costs down, which would be enticing to businesses. Another great feature of Pearland is its proximity to Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston, as it is no more than a few hours by car to get to any of these cities. Pearland’s proximity to all of these major cities means that any business that moves there has a huge available workforce to tap into, as the many freeways allow for people to commute from further away. They are also very close to a major port, which lowers costs of goods that are imported by boat. Another plus is the proximity to an international airport, which would allow for businesses to easily send their employees on business trips if need be. The industries already seemed to be more diverse in Pearland, than in Saratoga, for example, where it seemed like technology was the main focus. With a more diverse set of businesses in Pearland, the local economy will do much better as it will never rely on a single industry alone. Out of all of the cities I learned about this week, Pearland seems to be by far the best choice from an economic development perspective.

                I’m not sure that the city council would need a proposal to entice businesses to move to Pearland. The land costs are already very low because of the abundance of available land to build on, which is already a huge incentive for businesses. When you add that to the fact that Pearland has many available housing options, is near a major port and international airport, and has one of the largest medical centers in the country, I cannot see how the city council could possibly give any more incentive for businesses to come. In Urban Policy Reconsidered, it was mentioned that many of the textile factories that were once housed in Philadelphia moved elsewhere as the companies saw how low land prices were. I think that the same can happen with the huge amount of available land in Pearland. All types of businesses will want to move to a place where the land prices are low and there is a very abundant available workforce. The only thing that may entice businesses more is if the city were able to offer them some sort of tax break, although that may not be economically sensible when the land prices are already so low, which already means less money will come in from taxes. I believe that Pearland has enough to offer that the city council does not need anything big to entice businesses to move their operations there.

                I do not think I would apply Pearland for a Hope VI grant. The program seemed to work well, and produced a sense of community, but it does involve tearing people’s houses down. I think that this would be hard for the residents of Pearland, and it would make certain areas very unsightly, which would not entice new businesses to come in. Safer housing and safer communities are always a plus, but Pearland seems to be doing great as it is now. From what I saw, Pearland seems to be thriving, and other cities would probably see a much greater benefit from a Hope VI grant than Pearland would.

Week Three

                After watching the first three parts of Waiting for Superman, I found it so interesting that I continued to watch the entire documentary before writing this post. After watching the movie, I would say that the core problem surrounding America’s education system is the fact that we have so many different levels of government and bureaucracies all trying to set different standards for our schools. The federal government sets standards, and then state and local governments set their own standards, and then school districts and the schools themselves set yet another level of standards. As the documentary said, the standards are so different that a student could fail a standardized test in one state, and then pass a similar test in the next state over. I also feel that a huge problem in overcoming the problems in our schools is teachers’ unions. As shown in the movie, almost any reform that Michelle Rhee (Chancellor of Washington DC schools) tried to make was shot down by the teachers union. She wanted to create a new system where a teacher could either choose to take tenure and get a moderate raise, or choose not to take tenure, and be held accountable for their actions, and be rewarded for being a great teacher with up to a six-figure salary. I thought that this system would have worked very well because the potential of earning that much as a teacher is mostly unheard of. This would have pushed teachers in Washington DC to work harder and it would have produced better teachers, better schools, and higher performing students. The teachers’ union, however, did not even let the idea get put to a vote, and Rhee was shot down.

                I think that the best way that the government could help turn our public schools around is to set national standards that all public schools in the nation must adhere to so that every child has the same chance to get a great education. There is no need for so many different levels of government to try to set their own education standards, and as we have seen over the years, this system obviously doesn’t work. I do believe that a more centralized education system would make a huge difference in our education system. I think that there are huge gaps in what children are learning in different parts of the country, and this is keeping all students from being successful in school. If our education system worked better, with more federal regulations and less influence from state and local governments, I think that America could get back to where it used to be, as one of the world leaders in education.

                After watching Waiting for Superman, I think that teachers are a big part of the education problem in America, but they are also the solution. I believe that we should eliminate tenure for teachers, and that they should all be subject to observation and get their own report cards every year, just like the students do. From the movie, it seemed that many teachers tend to get lazy after they gain tenure because there is basically no way that they can be fired. This eliminates their need to work harder and to try to get better every year. Yes, there are many teachers who do not get lazy after they get tenure, and they are constantly working to improve themselves and to help their students reach their full potential, but these teachers are not the majority. I for one had teachers in all levels of school who flat out told students that they hated their jobs, and who showed movies when they did not feel like teaching. I also did not go to school in a poor neighborhood, which is mainly what was featured in Waiting for Superman. I went to school in an upper-middle class neighborhood, but there was still the same mix of good, great, okay, and bad teachers. This happens, everywhere, and I think it can be solved by making teachers fight to do their best every day. I believe that if someone really does love teaching, and does it for the children, they will have no problem keeping their job and earning a great salary. If we can regulate the system, make more federal standards, and hold our teachers to a higher standard, America’s education system can be one of the best in the world.

Week Two

               If money was not an option, once I graduate college I would love to move to an apartment in Greenwich Village in New York City. Aside from the fact that New York City is my favorite place in the world, it is also a great place for every career opportunity imaginable, a major hub for the arts, and is brimming with culture. My personal reasons for wanting to move to Greenwich Village are that I love the hustle and bustle of the city, I love the art scene, and that the feeling that the city possesses makes me incredibly happy. Greenwich Village also has many aspects that we discussed in class which make it, in my opinion, an excellent place to live.

                One of the huge issues that we discussed in class was the trade-off between transportation expenses and home values. Home values go down when they are further away from the center of the city. This seems like an excellent thing, but being further away from the city means a longer, and therefore more expensive commute to work or school in the city every day. When you live further away, you may be able to rely on public transportation if there is a bus route near your home that can get you to your place of work, but most people commute by car. Driving a car means that you have to make car payments, insurance payments, fill it with gas, and pay for all repairs it needs. In a place like Greenwich Village, however, you can live walking distance from basic necessities, like a grocery store, park, the theatre, and doctor’s offices, and if you need something elsewhere in the city, you can hop on the subway. This trade off does mean that housing prices rise, but to me, this trade off is well worth it. I would love to live in a city where I could walk out my front door and go down the street to get a cup of coffee, as opposed to my current situation in Scottsdale where I have to drive a few miles just to get to a Starbucks. Less reliance on cars means that residents will be healthier and happier, and therefore will positively contribute to the life of the neighborhood. For me, one of the biggest factors in my choice of Greenwich Village was its proximity to the city as well as its abundance of public transportation.

                Although Greenwich Village has already been gentrified, and is no longer home to starving artists and a Bohemian crowd, it keeps that artistic feeling alive, unlike other cities where gentrification ends up killing the spirit of what originally made the place so great. This could still happen to Greenwich Village, but with NYU so close to the neighborhoods, the young college students will help to keep that hip, artistic feeling alive. According to the author of the textbook, Sharon Zukin, “significantly, cultural value is now related to economic value.” The culture and art scene of Greenwich Village is what brought people there in the first place, and it is what drove housing prices sky-high. Affluent young people, businesses, and real estate agents alike all saw the promise of this up and coming neighborhood, and many people moved in to try to soak up the culture. This caused housing prices to become way to high for the artists and performers to continue living there, but they still perform every day in Washington Square Park, keeping the energy alive. Greenwich Village is now one of the best neighborhoods in New York City because it has become a much safer place to raise a family, yet it still manages to keep the artsy vibe which drew people in originally. If I could live anywhere in the world as a single, affluent, young adult, I could think of no better place to live than here. Greenwich Village is within walking distance to almost all of your needs, and is a short subway or bus ride to everything else. It is an affluent, growing neighborhood, full of life and of people who enjoy art and culture. Gentrification is no longer a huge issue, and the neighborhood still manages to keep its Bohemian vibe. This city has everything I could ask for, and would be the perfect place to move to.

Week One

Hey everyone! My name is Allison Shebek. I am a sophomore at ASU majoring in Tourism Development and Management. This is my first year here at ASU because I attended NAU my freshman year. The school and town (and weather) were not a good fit for me, so I moved back down to Tempe and I am so glad I did. When I graduate, I hope to work on a cruise ship, or perhaps for a large company such as Disney. I can't wait to get to know you all better and I hope you all have a fantastic semester!

I thought that our first class was very interesting. I was introduced to a lot of new topics that I had never heard of before. I never knew about the policy cycle that policies go through, and how long it takes for policies to go into effect. Before coming to this class, I thought that a policy was just a policy, and didn't realize that there were so many different types, such as distributive and regulatory. Reading Urban Policy Reconsidered really helped me to understand policy better, and how every little thing can have a profound effect on a city. I really liked how the author described people and place as being constitutive of each other to describe how people are affected by their surroundings, and vice-versa. People's attitudes, beliefs, and social status are affected by their communities, and they in turn affect the community themselves. This led to the question of how cities decide how to implement policy, and whether the individuals or the community are what needs to be changed. The policy approach that we talked about in class that really resonated with me was communitarian vs individalism because I was able to agree with both sides' views. This topic really made me think about what view I most closely fit with. I think that shared resources are a good thing, which fits with the communitarian approach, but I also feel that it would be difficult because it would be impossible to decide what's best for everyone. I agree with the individualism approach that free will is important, but I am not so sure that the private sphere should always be more important than the public sphere, so I feel that I probably lie somewhere in the middle between these views. I think that I am going to learn a lot from this class, and knowledge about public and urban policies will be a great benefit to me in my career and my life.