OBE#6 Privatized enclaves are for senior citizens.
OBE#6 Privatized enclaves are for senior citizens. (revised)
Davis’ builds an argument similar to Calderia. Davis is disturbed that LA is polarizing citizens socially, economically, spatially and the local government and the elite are seemingly ignoring the issue. In addition, he states how security in LA is becoming a privilege versus a tax-paying right. In Davis’ words LA is promoting “Architecturally policing social barriers.” (203)
Blatant social isolation, such is what’s happening in LA, threatens the well-being of all residents because it allows crime and hate is spread in a disease like manner throughout the city. What’s ironic is that the government, whose sole responsibility is to protect the people, is the very leaders orchestrating social disorganization through neglect. A quick history lesson; the American government was established to assist the human rights of the underprivileged population. That is, healthcare, jobs, security etc. Regardless of what political party is representing the spatial segregation mess in LA, it’s the government’s responsibility to maintain social sustainability. In a metropolis environment, poverty is everybody’s responsibility. The elite and the government are liable for poverties social disease because criminal activity brews in these neighborhoods. I’m not saying that citizens who live in poverty are socially ill people rather crime lurks in poor neighborhoods. Neglected poor communities simply do not have the civic resources to defend themselves against the seeds of crime. People who choose to ignore or hide from poverty instigate social disorganization in public spaces that eventually will affect everyone. Case example: Rodney King in ’91. As drug relations, gang activity, unemployment and other social issues in poor communities rise taxes escalate for the entire community. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not in a citizens best interest to ignore or hide from poor neighborhoods because one way or another it seep into their lives. Tax payers should hold the local government responsible for these civic issues. However, when the government fails to do so, the general public should develop a brighter plan to ensure protection to residents equally. Otherwise the whole city will be a target for criminal activity. Or at that the very least the elite will be annoyed by increased taxes to compensate for social disorganization.
Just to play the devil’s advocate, I’m not condoning people who live in privatized enclaves. Everyone has the right to feel comfortable in their home setting. What I’m saying is that you can’t hide from poverty as Davis says, “Today’s upscale, pseudo-public spaces are full of invisible signs warning off the underclass.” (201)
With that, privatized enclaves are a great way a housing community for our 60+ baby boomers. Seniors can freely play golf or tennis. Women can synchronize their water aerobic dancing in the pool without the public poking fun. Retired people deserve to be in a secured environment free of teenage hoodlums and dog barking nuisances.
Socio-spatial strategies to hide from poverty will never work. It’s ridiculous that society thinks if they ignore the problem it will disappear. And why is social contact with poor people so fatiguing anyway? I don’t want to sound to Oprah Winfrey here…but I think it’s easier for people who avoid poverty (based on personal insecurities) versus addressing gratitude that reflects their lifestyle then helping persons in need. The people who live in poverty situations are not harmful persons, just economically misfortunate. It’s when underprivileged citizens have a difficult time finding a place in society when real social problems arise. In essence, it would be easier to help poor neighborhoods versus allow criminal activity to occur with one-eye closed.