The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis."Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substanda

The appearance of a recommendation given by the planning department of the city of Transopolis for urban renewal program states that occupancy of an area for industrial use in the opposite side of the city will revitalise the city based on the earlier similar action taken 10 years ago which brought in prosperity in terms of new construction of factories, decline in crime rates and increase in property tax. This recommendation does not make a cogent case since it is rife with holes and unwarranted assumption. Therefore, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, following three evidences must be collected.

First of all, the evidence which may prove that the area occupied earlier 10 years ago and the area which planning department is recommending to occupy are same in all respects. In other words, conditions of these areas in terms of socio-economic status of denizens, industrial status, and reform plan executed earlier, if any, crime statistics and tax revenue must be same, since if any of these characteristics are different in some manner, it may not lead to desired result. For instance, the area occupied earlier might have not have single industry earlier, but may be because of its location near to the sea ports or airports, industrial houses established their presence for easiness of exports. However, the area which planning department is recommending to occupy may fall in the location to which there is no direct pathway to these ports or airports, therefore, the presence of industrial houses in future will be in doubt. Moreover, it is incorrect to assume that these occupation resulted in increase in property taxes since it is possible that property tax rate was high ten years ago and after acquiring it for industrial use, property tax revenue increase, while, the tax rate in the planned area may be zero or at very low point and to promote industry, authorities reduced the existing tax rates, therefore, it may not leading to higher tax revenues. If any of these examples were true, then the recommendation does not hold water.

Secondly, the evidence is required in terms of discussion or dialogue with the residents of the planned area which can stated that these residents are willing to relocate to the nearby area where existing houses are unoccupied. And the conditions of these unoccupied houses are conducive to living. In other words, it is required that planning department to have some deliberations regarding the shifting of current residents to the new houses without protest or backlash. For instance, it may happen that area occupied earlier was not conducive to living because of no civic amenities, therefore, denizens of this area relocated to new locations willingly. However, if the residents of this planned area are unwilling to relocate because of their jobs or means of living present in this area only, then this recommendation may lead to massive protest across the city. Moreover, it may happen that residents displaced earlier were given houses replete with all housing and civic amenities and future source to earn money to make the living. However, if the conditions of the unoccupied houses are not conducive in terms of its dilapidated conditions, no source of earning the livelihood and it is in some remote locations, residents may not like to move these houses. If, any of the examples has merit, recommendation given by the planning department is significantly weakened.

Third, evidence is required to prove that people currently living in the planned area are responsible for substandard city and they would change once move to new locations. In other words, it is assumed that if these people are relocated to new locations, industrial houses will be established here which will bring in new smart people that will make the city vigorous. For instance, it is assumed that the earlier decision of displacing the people to new location resulted in establishment of industrial houses and decline in crime rates, made an indirect relation to these people responsible for the crimes. However, it may happen that the residents of these new planned area are good citizen and have propriety and the crime rates are already at nadir, therefore, their displacement may not result further reduction in crime rates. Moreover, it is also assumed that earlier displacement had not resulted in another substandard area where residents were relocated. However, it may happen that residents which were relocated to a new location are leading to substandard life in this new area where crime rates are increasing at unprecedented level. Unless the recommendation is fully representative, valid and reliable, it cannot be used to back the idea of planning department.

In conclusion, the recommendation, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumption. If the planning department is able to provide the above evidences and offer more documents, perhaps in the form of types of industries to be established, tax policy for the area and industrial policy for the area, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation.