Why zoning restrictions are in fact to the disadvantage of the poor

  Zoning restrictions for houses have been around for most of the last century and were mainly set up to segregate uses and buildings which are incompatible. Whilst they are supposed to protect certain residential areas and businesses, they have been criticized far and wide and with good reason.

  Ethnic and economic segregation is a common problem in urban areas of the United States. Zoning restrictions do nothing to help segregation, on the contrary, they are going to enhance it by a great deal.

  As housing is scarce anyway, the prices of housing will be heightened even more, due to high demand. Zoning restrictions prevent quick development of new housing in certain areas, due to different kinds of approvals which are mandatory to receive before being allowed to build.

  Moreover the height, densitiy and building restrictions will make housing even less affordable for the poor and the working class in certain areas, as it is cheaper to build higher building and buy less land.

  The lack of affordable housing in certain areas will lead  and has lead to a concentration of wealthy people on the one hand and a concentration of the working class and poor people on the other.

  As a consequence of this economic and often ethnic segregation, problems such as for example the decay of the housing in poor areas and a heightened crime rate will arise. It is also going to lead to frustration and aversion between the wealthy and the working class.

  To prevent further segregation and problems that could arise in shunted areas the local government will have to relax zoning restrictions to make housing more efficient and affordable. 

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

Zoning restrictions are supposed to regulate guidelines for plots of land within a certain area which, for example, determine the use of land for particular causes such as commercial or industrial purposes

A classic example of rules regarding the construction of buildings is the limitation of a structure's height. As a matter of fact these regulations can increase the costs for the land a house is built on by setting an extremely low maximum of height on a rather large minimum size lot.

Therefore, people with a lower income than the average citizen will not be able to afford to move into a larger city with promising working prospects, which prevents an even urban distribution of people. The intention clearly is to keep residents of the same social and economic status in one zone.

Poor people who are excluded from living in regions with strict zoning regulations will accumulate in areas far away from the above mentioned.

This again will lead to bad living conditions due to an atmosphere of severe despair, that likely expresses itself in thievery, vandalism and thievery as well as other forms of crime - a vicious circle of poverty with no exit.

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


Nowadays traditional media sources like newspapers and magazines struggle with their readership, whereas digital media e.g. online news websites register an increase because more and more people are using them. Contrasting the traditional news forms of newspapers, magazines and radio with the new digital boom of, for example Facebooks newsfeed there is a great difference. Contrasting both, social media has more advantages in the opinion of the users because they can get the news very fast, anywhere and anytime.

The system of traditional news differs to the digital model. The distributin is not as fast as those of the digital branch. On the other hand tradiotional news are more accurate and written by authentic investigative journalists, who are always trying to tell and find the truth behind storys. This differantiates the newspapers from social media to give an example papers like The New York Times have core-readers and a faithful readerahip.

Contrasting traditional journalism and social media, the traditionals have an important advantage, unlike social media platforms the traditional sources like news magazines have core- readers and they will remain and survive any crisis. In this point media journailsm is contrary to the traditionals, because various sites are competing with each other for the favour of the readership to be the fastest, best and the one with the most clicks.

Although traditional journalism seems to be in a crisisis because of the massive consumption that happens on social media I believe that it will survive and come out stronger. 
   

If you can't beat 'em...

                  It has become increasingly more difficult for traditional media to survive in a world of social media.  The prevalence of sites like Buzzfeed, that offer bite size pieces of information packed in a sensational title perfectly illustrate the growing difficulties traditional journalism face.

              Much of the news that can be found on social media differs greatly from that of traditional journalism. Unlike traditional investigative journalism, social media delivers bits of information that can be easily read on a cell phone during the subway ride to work. These compressed articles are contrary to a complete article often lacking on important background information. Information is necessary when building an opinion, whereas the lack of information can lead to opinions based on false premises.

               While traditional journalism trumps social media on the use of fact based information, social media wins in reaching a broader audience, or at least one would think so. While writing this blog, I decided to check the Facebook pages of the New York Times and Buzzfeed News. Opposed to what I originally thought the New York Times has roughly 12.5 million followers on Facebook and Buzzfeed news only about 2 million. 

               A possibility for traditional journalism to survive the social media revolution is to use the tools of the social media to sustain the traditional side of journalism. This does not mean they should change the way they work, but how they present themselves. It remains of the utmost importance for readers to be able to differentiate between factual correct stories and sensational stories looking to clickbait users

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

This question ties in with the first blog post where we entered into the question of how the problem of financing print media will be resolved in the future. In contrast to the subject of “print media”, we need to distinguish the term “traditional journalism” first. Journalism can be defined as “the press” in general or the activity and function of journalists.

Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate between the “traditional journalism”, implicating the traditional media i.e. print media including newspapers and magazines and the core function of journalists. The later hasn`t changed very much over the years, although the technical circumstances have drastically improved.

According to Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch, “we come to understand and construct ourselves as subjects within local, national and global contexts through the rituals of consuming and discussing the texts of journalism.” They continue: “In particular, journalism is seen as intrinsically tied to democracy” (Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch, page 3).

I would therefore put serious and investigative journalism on a level with “traditional” journalism. The question that arises is, how to call the editors of sites like Buzzfeed, that use sensationalism shock to increase clicks. I call them simply content- or click-generators versus editors with stamina. This kind of media has nothing to do with the function of journalism in a democracy as fourth estate.

In this context I agree with Will Oremus, who sees facebook`s new Instant Articles feature as a chance for (traditional, serious) publishers, who hopefully retain control over their content, using the popularity of social media. In conclusion I would argue, that traditional journalism combined with modern digital media can survive, because of its important role as a controlling force in a democracy, if it is able to retain its independence.

Sources:

Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin, and Thomas Hanitzsch, eds. The Handbook of Journalism Studies. International Communication Association (ICA) Handbook Series. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Oremus, Will. “Facebook Is Eating the Media. Is That Such a Bad Thing?” Future Tense, May 13, 2015. www.slate.com.