African-Americans segregates themselves

The argument that African-Americans segregates themselves from other
groups is not a valid argument. It is not partly because of history, since
municipal ordinance in the early 1900's determined where African-Americans
could live, which are now considered ghettos. A reason why this ordinance
was in existence is because Chicago is an older city that grew during a time
when racial struggles were occurring. This history is what gives Chicago a
high index of dissimilarity, which means that there is a high level of
segregation between races. There is a long history of segregation between
whites and African-Americans in Chicago and thus the old ghettos were never
integrated into the city and probably will never be.
There are also illegal practices that occur today that were started when
signs of discrimination became relevant in the early 1900's. In this era
realtors would not show African-Americans houses in a white neighborhood,
and if blacks were shown houses, the banks would not approve loans for the
houses. Even today, blacks who live in a predominately white neighborhood
are harassed and their houses are vandalized. The long history of
discrimination, especially in Chicago, show that blacks don't segregate
themselves, but instead other racial groups began segregating against them a
long time ago, and still are today.
2) It would not be a very viable strategy to subsidize two retail stores in
this region. First off in LA there are eleven suburban activity
centers(SAC's) within 20 km of the CBD, as seen on MAP2. By definition
activity centers contain a high concentration of retail stores. With a
large portion of the area around the CBD being occupied by SAC's, which have
a high concentration of retail stores, adding more stores would only lower
the threshold population of the other stores and give the new stores a low
threshold population. Adding two stores to this area will probably not
bring in other stores like the city would like to see happen. As we saw
with the Forest Fair mall example, the Cincinnati area already had a surplus
of stores, when the new mall was created, there wasn't enough households to
support the added stores. The city would like to see more stores come to
the CBD, because this means more taxes and other amenities that go along
with an enhanced image of successful retail stores. But eventually at least
two stores would shut down, because of the deficit of households. The
cities plea to bring these new stores to the area for the purpose of
enhancing the image of the city, fails to recognize that there is already
eleven SAC's within 20 km of the CBD. Having just one SAC would help the
image of the city, but with the city having eleven SAC's shows that this
city already has an enhanced image.
3) This strategy to purchase this land has some disadvantages and one
advantage, but in the long run is not viable. This land that would be
obtained from former manufacturing plants will cost a lot of money to clean
up and make usable for new large manufacturing plants. As highlighted on
Map3, the area that is proposed to be rezoned does not have a high density
of large manufacturing plants, and thus plant builders would be reluctant to
purchase land in this region, even at below cost. The one advantage is that
these new plants would be able to support under-employed citizens. This
advantage to citizens does not outweigh the great expense that the city will
spend cleaning and removing past waste from these abandon houses and vacant
4) This would not be a viable strategy because of the number of households
built prior to 1940 and the number of SAC's in LA. As can be seen on Map4,
there are few houses built prior to 1940 in LA. This limited amount of
housing built prior to 1940 is directly related to the number of abandoned
houses, only a few. SAC's cause the land value around them to be high, thus
an enhanced property tax base. By definition, SAC's contain apartment
complexes, which are occupied office workers that work in the SAC's. So the
argument to redevelop the housing within 30 km of the CBD is invalid.
Because this