Does the marketplace of ideas and media leaves us overwhelmed and disaffacted?

The contermporary marketplace deals with a vast variety of ideas and media. In the last decades the term media had become a concept of different constituents that is not merely consisting of newspapers anymore. Furthermore, television and the internet have become a main source of information and entertainment. Social media exemplifies the rapid development and a change of media sources online. Websites such as Facebook or Twitter are technical companies that only deal with journalistical content as one feature in their offering.

 Therefore, the definition of a well-informed citizen evolved. Nowdays it is more difficult to organize the selection of media sources. A well-organized citizen has to pick one or a few publishing or technical company in order to achieve at least a little selection of information. The more tenuous part is to know, if the source is trustworthy. In the contemporary circumstances, that decision provides a realistic illustration how confused a consumer might be nowadays.

Notably, in addition to that struggle is that most of the citizens just choose the source that the majority has choosen. This is sort of a paradoxon. The marketplace offers so many alternatives for so many different types of citizens that one could assume everyone is able to find a proper niche. This assumption seems to be wrong, because circulation numbers show a trend of considering one source as the best one, for example a number one hit in the music charts or a book in the best-seller list.

Summing up, I see a trend of citizens who are overwhelmed and disaffacted by the marketplace and especially by too many alternatives. People tend to have difficulties with decisions that will not get better by offering as much alternatives as possible.

sources:
 ''Cultural critism and the way we live now'' by Louis Menand, 10/17/2016
''Deciderization 2007---a Special Report''by David Foster Wallace, 2007

Can traditional journalism survive in a media environment in which consumption happens mostly on social media?

Can traditional journalism survive in a media environment in which consumption happens mostly on social media?

In former times, original journalism organizations controlled all the news products and services, whereas now social media companies like Facebook have become very influential and even supplant the aims of news outlets with their own interests. Print media still has a good subscriber base, but by contrast, the circulation of these mediums decreases continuously. As an example, according to the Pew Research Center survey in January 2016, only 5 percent of U.S. adults considered print media as their “most helpful“ source concerning getting information about political issues. 

Although the traditional journalism has shown that it can compete with social media by making experiments with virtual reality journalism, for instance, one has to distinguish the two competitors generally because they differentiate in their aims and have a different audience. 
Quality newspapers are very serious. By contrast, news provided on social media sites often just consider one side of a case and even use sensationalism shocks to get more clicks. However, 62 percent of the U.S. adults get their news from social media and the circulation of newspapers falls a few percent each year. In addition, I personally do not read newspapers either and get my information from Facebook and other websites.

Another important aspect to consider is that Facebook has a feature called Instant Articles which allows its users to get information from other sites like Buzzfeed without leaving Facebook. That is to say, Facebook has an advantage as opposed to print media. 

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that original print media can still survive in an environment which is mostly influenced by social media but unfortunately it is losing its value over time

Nancy Paap (Posted by Aaron)

Are zoning restrictions for houses detrimental to the well-being of poor people?

Zoning essentially controls where houses can be located. There are different restrictions included in zoning, for example, the amount of square meters of a house and a minimum of lot size, as well as restrictions on how many people can occupy a lot. 

I am of the opinion that zoning is disadvantageous to the well-being of poor people because zoning restrictions require certain standards which are mostly very cost-intensive. To give an illustration of what I mean, let us have a look at particular safety restrictions, such as minimums for the emergency vehicle access. If the poor live in areas with zoning restrictions of that kind they will have to observe these special norms for the emergency access and have to pay for the realization of them on their lot. Another compelling example to clarify the problem is the minimum of lot size as mentioned above. Poor people cannot spend much money on a large lot because they only have a limited budget.

 The general fact that poor people are disadvantaged in this particular case has an impact on the development of prestige suburbs. As a consequence, the poor population is going to be excluded more and more by the wealthier people in society. 

Nancy Paap (Posted by Aaron)

Are zoning restrictions for houses detrimental to the well being of poor people?

Are zoning restrictions for houses detrimental to the well being of poor people? 

To answer this question we have to illustrate the definition to clarify its term. Zoning describes the control by authority of the use of houses or land. This decisions and rules are made by the government. Areas of land are divided into parts more precisely into zones and these zones have several uses. But the people are obliged to satisfy the requirements. So zoning is a way of urban planning used by the goverments of most countries.

Unfortunately zoning has various negative aspects, especially for people with lower incomes. All the different requirements for the regulation of the land use is difficult to handle. Notably the group of people with lower incomes can't effort it. Social segregation appears because the ones who can't pay all the zoning requirements have to move away to areas where they can effort to live. Another point is that all the various zoning rules makes it impossible for people to live comfortable. To change e.g. the window frames or make new fences at the house the local government has to be consolidated, because nothing can be changed without their permission. People have to face with a lot of bureaucracy for a simple renovation of the house. This inhibits the efficient use of the residential areas.

For all the given reasons above I totally agree with the statement that zoning restrictions for houses are detrimental to the well being of poor people.

Meryem (Posted by Aaron)

Zoning restrictions for houses are detrimental to the well-being of poor people

Urban planning and zoning are pertinent to the development of our cities, especially with the increasing demographic shift from country regions toward metropolitan districts. Providing decent and affordable housing is one of the most important functions of a community, a factor, which needs to be taken into consideration when developing urban communities. However, the stringent aspects and rules of zoning and land use policies can be detrimental to the people who move in the lower income brackets.  Zoning policies can and will create “elitist” suburbs, displacing specific groups such as the low -income earners, possibly some of the minorities and the elderly, into low socio-economic areas.  Current suburban hot spots, illustrate the effects of such displacement of minorities and low-income earners, where factors such as crime and unemployment are most notably higher than the metropolitan average.  

Zoning restrictions for houses are detrimental to the well-being of poor people. Agree or disagree?

Zoning restrictions do not have to be detrimental to the well-being of poor people. It depends on the actual implementation of the restrictions.

For instance, there are cities such as Hamburg that provides a high density of buildings, but offers exclusive residential areas as well. This could be possible by dividing the city into different neighboorhoods with according rental prices. The effects could be advantageous or fatal. For the implement of community goals, zoning has the possibility to be reasonable. Kindergardens that have been built close to residential areas as an example of zoning eases everyday lifes. On the other hand, it promotes social and economic segregation that I consider as an obstacle of development. People should not be trapped in quarters just because they lack funding basis to satisfy the zoning restrictions. The arbitrariness of those restrictions is illustrated by restrictions forcing every property owner to construct the same expensive fence. This requirement should not be necessary in order  to live in a certain quarter.

Eventough cities have quarters, such as Winterhude in Hamburg, with a vareity of buildings, the segregation due to income and wealth predominates the division of population. Coming to a conclusion, I precieve zoning restrictions as a limitation of freedom. Therefore, I would agree with the statement that zoning restrictions are detrimental to the well-being of poor people and communities.

Zoning restrictions for houses – Why they will be detrimental to the well being of poor people

In some towns and cities land is divided into residential, commercial and industrial zones. Within those zones additional requirements must be strictly adhered to, which are defined by zoning restrictions. Those restrictions can be very detailed. For example, a residential zone may only allow single-family homes, a minimum size of rooms, a certain roof and so on. Increasingly stringent land use regulations have an enormous impact on a zone, such as higher housing prices and higher land prices.

Because of zoning restrictions it will become more difficult to build for developers, which in turn will notably limit housing construction and consequently housing supply. Especially in urban areas, this will be an increasing problem for the poor people. There won’t be enough affordable housing supply.

Furthermore, more and more people will move to the city, because of better job perspective, a better infrastructure of doctors, schools, et cetera. But because of zoning restrictions, which are supported by the wealthy because they want to remain among their peers, the poorer ones will be forced to move to zones where they can afford living, which mostly are more far away from the center of the city or from the spots where jobs and a better infrastructure is located. Some of the consequences for poor people could be, that they will need more time to get to work or even will have difficulties to find a work, that they will be in an environment with a worse infrastructure and that they will be clustered among their peer.

All in all, zoning restriction will lead to a greater economic segregation and a growing gap between rich and poor ones, notably in cities.

Source:

Glaeser, Edward L., Ward, Bryce A. 2009. The causes and consequences of land use regulation: Evidence from Greater Boston. Journal of Urban Economics 65, 265–278.

Quigley, John M., Rosenthal, Larry A. 2005. The Effects of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know? What Can We Learn? Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 8 (1), 69-137.

Zoning restrictions for houses are detrimental to the well-being of poor people.

This phrase is too simple to agree or disagree with. I will try to explain why: Zoning restrictions for houses are manifold and can have advantages as well as disadvantages for certain people. A generalization and reduction to the detrimental effect of zoning restrictions is therefore not on the level of a sage debate. If a community is going to establish zoning restrictions in certain areas, it may very well conserve existing neighborhoods, environmentally sensitive areas and prevent the mixing of incompatible land uses. This could also have positive effects to indigent people, living there. For example pleasure grounds can be protected from being covered with buildings. To support impecunious people and their living situations, other, more effective governmental measures should be implemented: a revolutionary change of the inheritance and fiscal law as well as public assisted conversion of vacant industrial real estate into affordable housing space.

Zoning restrictions for houses are detrimental to the well-being of poor people.

In my opinion zoning restrictions for houses are detrimental to the well-being of poor people. The original use of zoning is to segregate uses that are incompatible. However, a more common use of zoning is, for example, to preserve the character of a community by setting limits such as the height of a building. Therefore, the price of a property will increase notably, which will be problematic for poor people.