1000 RC - passage 97 - The idea of New Towns.......

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members
The idea of building "New Towns" to absorb growth is frequently considered a cure-all for urban problems. It is erroneously assumed that if new residents can be diverted from existing centers, the present urban situation at least will get no worse. It is further and equally erroneously assumed that since European New Towns have been financially and socially successful, we can expect the same sorts of results in the United States.
Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.
Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income. The remaining taxpayers, accordingly, will face increasing burdens, and industry and commerce will seek escape. Unfortunately, this mechanism is already at work in some metropolitan areas.
The promoters of New Towns so far in the United States have been developers, builders, and financial institutions. The main interest of these promoters is economic gain. Furthermore, federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. In fact, our regulations specify virtually all the ingredients of the typical suburban community, with a bit of political rhetoric thrown in.
A workable American New Town formula should be established as firmly here as the national formula was in Britain. All possible social and governmental innovations as well as financial factors should be thoroughly considered and accommodated in this policy. Its objectives should be clearly stated, and both incentives and penalties should be provided to ensure that the objectives are pursued. If such a policy is developed, then the New Town approach can play an important role in alleviating America's urban problems.

Question - 3
According to the author, ill-considered New Towns will tend to weaken existing cities in which of the following ways? ( not understood )
I. They will cause an erosion in the tax base of existing cities.
II. The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas.
III. They will increase the number of low-income residents in existing cities.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) I and II only
(D) II and III only
(E) I, II, and III

Please explain your reasons to select the answer

Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:44 am
Thanked: 70 times
Followed by:6 members

by niksworth » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:17 am
IMO C.

I. They will cause an erosion in the tax base of existing cities. - Paragraph 3 - drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income.. High income citizens will move away and low income groups will be unable to pay taxes, so there will be an erosion in tax base of existing cities. Thus this is a valid reason stated by the author.

II. The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas. - Paragraph 3 - drawing away high-income citizens - Thus they will divert existing residents to other areas. Valid.

III. They will increase the number of low-income residents in existing cities. - Paragraph 3 - increasing the concentration of low-income groups. While the concentration (proportion) of low income residents would increase, there is no reason given for increase in absolute numbers of such residents. The proportional increase is due to moving away of high income residents from these cities. Not valid.

Thus the answer is C. What is the OA?