People or Place?

[Morgan Carter]

There is an ongoing debate as to if help should go to distressed places or distressed people. There are many communities that are struggling due to lack of resources and funds to finance the area. On the other had there are communities that are financially stable enough to support themselves. In a article titled “People or Place?” takes a look into both sides to see if there is a correct route to take. Many factors can contribute to whether or not a place should be helped, or a people.

I believe that it should be about the people. If a community is struggling due to the lack of resources such as jobs, transportation and housing then it is in response to resident’s incomes. Poverty has its own way of molding an area to the point where it seems impossible to reverse.  In communities like this majority of the time these problems arise due to the lack of education. Communities who thrive in education often times do not experience such difficulties.     

If communities made education a priority it would prevent some of the issues that occur.  According to the article targeting is a tactic that would be very useful. This will help developers identify the intended beneficiaries of where the problem is occurring. When a community is faced with poor schools, crime can rapidly increase. It is believed that crime is in result of poverty. This is what can make a city less attractive to visitors and investors who may have to desire to plant a development.

People are the species who run this world, not places. If society has put things over humans it has lost its humanity. Without people places would be non-existing. The common good of man should be the most important factor to society. Help should be provide to those who are struggling, so in response communities can be restored and thrive to their full potential.

https://dbu.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-644364-dt-content-rid-548...