Archives Project Essay

Jayleen Jimenez
April 2011
Luke Vasileou
Eng 103

During the 70s, New York City experienced a malevolent crisis that affected every New Yorker in some sort of way. The city suffered socially and economically. There were high unemployment rates that were increasing with each day that passed. Of course where there’s high unemployment, there’s crime spawning within the gaping void that’s left behind as a result. Roger Starr,a Housing Administrator, used this towards his advantage to facilitate his desires of “planned shrinkage”. He was a radical who was determined to get the job due to the belief of the city decreasing in size and population no matter what the circumstances were.
When his ideas were presented there was more of mass of negative reactions than there was positive. Not many were in favor of his idea particularly the minorities. Being that the minorities were already suffering enough from the postwar economic slump, this was depressing and distraught news presented to them. In attempts to make a stand, they were often ridiculed by some such as a journalist from the Daily News, a newspaper that was and is filled with highly subjective articles. On the 4th of March 1976, an article was written in the Daily News titled as “A Display of Ignorance”. The title itself already shows the discontentment towards minorities for whatever reason the author may possess. On this day, a regional conference was being held and Starr was planned to deliver a statement but a gathering of perturbed protestors were rallying outside and displaying their objection towards his “planned shrinkage”. All they wanted was for the idea not to go through because just as everyone else they had homes. Despite their lack of money being at their disposal, they were treated differently and often categorized as living in the slums. The ignorant of this article made their position proven by showing their demeaning and belittling conduct that was presented on the paper. They deemed the protestors as being boorish and using fascistic tactics to intervene also mentioning the “gagging” of Starr.
“A band of hooting, howling protestors invaded a regional conference on Tuesday…”
This could have been worded where it didn’t exhibit much of their animosity towards the group of individuals despite the author’s positioning. The terms “hooting”, “howling”, and “invaded” made the protestors seem barbaric. Not only were they being degraded but Starr’s idea raped them of their fundamentals and rights.
Unemployment played a huge factor towards Starr’s scheme on “planned shrinkage” In the year of 1976, the agency reductions were all over 10%. Most being significant to the communities where the minorities resided. There was 4,879(13.7%)police reduced, 1,926(13.7%) firefighters laid off, and 8,130(17.3%) health employees laid off considering much more in other agencies. All of these notable necessities are what make a neighborhood strive in a way but without it, there is complete chaos. That’s exactly what happened to the “slums”. Without the police patrolling, the crime rate sparked. Where there was a fire, there was barely any firefighters. If there wasn’t any medical assistance then there would be much more injuries and casualties. With the lack of Sanitation, the entire neighborhood would be a complete pigsty. All of these factors were being pulled out one by one and forcing the neighborhoods to decrease in size and in value. This only outraged the residents further more but still Starr didn’t consider any of it.
In an interview that was dated in September 2 of 1993, Roger Starr gave much of his views and perspectives towards “planned shrinkage” and how he felt about the minorities. He was given a number of questions by Robert Fitch. In this interview, he should his extensive knowledge of the housing industry considering he was the administrator. He knew of what he was talking about quite well. It’s just he frowned upon the minorities and degraded them incessantly. He never considered them so he often planned without their views on such subjects. Roger Starr was a very controversial individual who wasn’t in favor of the Brook Amendments.
“...take tenants who couldn’t pay an adequate rental, so the maintenance of public housing deteriorated very rapidly…”
He strongly felt that the Brook Amendments gave minorities what they didn’t deserve. He felt that the Amendment was removing the “good” tenants and keeping the “bad” tenants which were minorities who took it for granted. Economically it didn’t favor Roger Starr nor the government. It was just a program built solely for those who were in need of money and housing.
Starr wasn’t always a pessimistic person, he had great ideas that helped the people in neighborhoods. If one were to wonder why project housings are shaped similar to a cross, it’s because it kept “people from going up the roof and doing drugs…”. It was a positive input because at least he tried to keep people from harm’s way though I am sure he was doing it more for his benefit. It was very considerate for Starr to think of drug abusers going up to the roof yet he is advocating for the decrease of police officer; in which these officers are the ones who are obligated to deal with drug users and those alike however they still removed the patrolling officers. Starr believed that fiscal terms left the city in a horrid shape economically. But he did have a bit of hope, he stated “If you were willing to sit and wait and wait and wait, you would eventually get paid off…” If you look at his opinion, you can see the relevance to his “planned shrinkage”. If you can wait for the plan to go through it would eventually be paid off well to the people and the government. At the end of the interview, Starr explains the influx of immigration, the decreasing jobs, and loss of population yet he still views the “planned shrinkage” as a great idea. Though we’re losing all of these things, to make matters much worse a continuation wouldn’t affect the people who already being troubled from his previous ideas/plans.
Starr was a cynical and radical man due to his determination on “planned shrinkage”. He was fully aware of the negatives and who were affected but still didn’t give much of a second guess. He favored the rich and that was evidently shown in the interview. It all was in favor of gaining profit and disregarding the poor. There could have been ways to avoid this and go about it in another way but Starr seemed to have focus on only one idea and that idea solely.