Urban Revitalization

¶ … social capital was available to you? Why? I would say that I have the benefit of a good education and strong background in appearing knowledgeable about something. This lends itself to convincing people and debating with people. • Did you have a lot of social capital relative to others? Had your social capital been influential in your life in terms of crime control? Why? Provide a real-life example of a person you think took to crime because of less social capital availability.

I would say I absolutely have at least a marginal advantage in social capital. I often keep my views to myself because some people are quite touchy about opinionated and outspoken people. However, when I do say thing I absolutely have something good to say and I believe I have the standing to make the assertions that I do, especially as it relates to crime. For example, I grew up quite poor. I didn't wear the fancy clothes or live in a big house.

However, resorting to a life a crime is nothing I ever did and I'm in a much better position now. As such, I have standing to say that it is not necessary to commit crime to get buy nor is it automatic that poverty leads to crime. Rappers are probably one of the more common examples of people that resorted to at least some crime to survive or thrive in their earlier days.

50 Cent, for example, was shot and stabbed several times before getting it big and Jay-Z's music is full of references to engaging in illegal activity to pay the bills. 2 Pac would be another example, and perhaps one of the better ones, given that he served jail time even during the height of career and he was eventually shot two different times in broad daylight, the second time killing him. • Which statement is acceptable? Why? Provide well-corroborated, scholarly reasons to justify your answer.

Neither is perfect but Merton is far and away the more accurate one. The concept behind the improvements to the impoverish area are noble but good intentions alone do not mean much when the reasons behind the area looking nasty are not ultimately fixed. The other problem is that the price controls for the residences are going to backfire…and for two reasons.

First, setting an artificially low (or high) price on an item that is not supported by market forces or prices in the area rarely ends well because it can influence the demand of a product to induce either shortages or gluts of property. Indeed, one person paying half of what their neighbor pays for the same accommodations is not going to end well. Second, one of the reasons it will not end well is because one of two things will happen.

Either the more affluent people who can afford the whole prices will avoid the area or they will move in and gentrify the poorer people out of the area unless the price controls remain in place. Regardless of whether the price controls stick or not, toying with the market like that and not fixing the underlying problems (which is not the appearance of the area, to be clear) is a recipe for disaster.

• Can society be classified as "fit" based on Merton's definition? Why or why not? Justify your answer with real-life examples and scholarly reasoning. I believe so, but only if "fit" means that equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes, is the main goal. Success and fulfillment is going to mean a different thing.