The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis Ten years ago as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard ho

Transopolis’ planning department counsels the city to implement a comprehensive urban renewal program in a declining residential area in an effort to revitalize their city. Members of the planning department rationalize their advice by citing benefits experienced after following the strategy in a different section of the city. While their recommendation might ultimately prove sensible, they should adduce three pieces of additional evidence in order to bolster the validity of their proposal.

First, the planning department needs to provide evidence that the improvements witnessed in the previously adapted area of the city (namely, the new factory construction, the decline in crime rates, and the increase in property tax revenues) were, in fact, caused by the urban renewal program rather than by other factors. For instance, companies might have already initiated plans to construct factories in that area without any awareness of the city’s plans. Perhaps Transopoplis’ Chief of Police had previously adjusted the police force’s strategy, and the crime rates fell as a result of this change. Likewise, a new tax bill may have passed which altered property tax revenues. Without evidence that these felicitous changes are truly attributable to the urban renewal program itself, the planning department’s advice remains questionable.

Additionally, the planning department should prove that the residential area on the opposite side of the city, where action is proposed, is comparable to the section where improvements were already made. If, for example, the section in question does not have adequate infrastructure to support growth, then companies may not deem it fit for factory construction, despite the city’s best efforts to attract them. The declining area under proposal may be further from the freeway, complicating transport of materials to and from potential factory sites. Moreover, that location might not contain large enough flat spaces for the requirements of potential enormous factory footprints. If the planning department cannot justify the suitability for industry of the area they propose altering, then the city would be wise to remain wary of investing in the department’s plans.

Furthermore, the city should demand that the planning department members account for the adequacy of the unoccupied houses and apartments to which they propose relocating displaced residents. Are the residences vacant for a reason, such as dilapidated or unsanitary conditions? If so, they are not viable alternatives. Similarly, they would not be suitable options if residents there would remain disconnected from employment opportunities; are these houses and apartments well connected to the city center via roads, bridges, footpaths, subway routes, and other modes of transit? The city might need to consider further expenses in their plan to account for constructing such infrastructure. The planning department’s suggestion to invest in this new section of the city remains weak without evidence that it fully accounts for the needs of all displaced citizens.

To conclude, the planning department’s suggestion to repeat their urban renewal program in a new area on the opposite side of Transopolis might be well advised. However, as it stands now, the department’s proposition rests on shaky ground. The department should adduce further evidence, as outlined above, in order to lend more credibility to its proposal and convince Transopolis to implement its strategy.