Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the a

The above article appeared as a recommendation from the planning department of Transopolis. It recommends a urban renewal program on the opposite side of Transopolis city so that substandard housing can be used for industrial purposes. The author cites the previously achieved success of urban renewal program and the unoccupancy of neighbourhoods are a justification for its recommendation and prediction. At first skim, the argument appears to be fairly convincing and legitimate. But on closer scrutiny a number of weak links appear in the argument that stand out as conspicuous logical flaws. The most pivotal of these flaws is discussed in succeeding paragraphs.

Firstly, the argument is rendered weak due to unavailability of information of increased crimes in other parts of the city. It is very much probable, that since there are less people are in the industrial sector, the crime has shifted elsewhere in the city. Simply displacing the crime is not a justification for further development. Is there evidence of significant crime in the location of the proposed for the new development. If not, that rationale won't fly. Moving crime to another part of the city does not makes the residents any safer nor saves the city money. Thus the contention that crime has decreased and property rates have increased is largely flawed.

Secondly, the aforementioned urban renewal program cited as justification for the planner's claim had taken place ten years ago. Therefore the assumption that the same scheme can be galvanized in the current time is grossly unconvincing. Ten years is a remarkably long period of time. It may be possible that ten years ago the city of Transoplois needed industrialization. Thus the measures taken ten years ago were fruitful at that time . The same may not be the scenario in the current time, as by now the city of Transopolis would be at its industrialization peak. Therefore this assumption lacks concrete evidence by the planner in its support.

Thidly the assumption that citizens would shift to the opposite side of the city is largely erraneous. They may demand more money for moving out of their home place. If they do so, then the whole strategy would fall apart and would be unrealistic to implement. In addition there is no mention about the basic amenities and facilities in the nearby neighbourhoods. The residents may want to check on the basic civic facilities like energy and water availability, drainage system, security or transportation options in the city. Unless all these facts are provided to them, they will likely to refuse the offer. Therefore the assumption that people will willingly shift to other side of the city is not adequately supported by the planner due to lack of credible evidence.

In the essence, the argument in its present form has a number of shortcomings, most blatant of which are discussed above. The given argument could have been strengthened if evidence in form of facilities in nearby town would have been stated. But in the absence of it and considering all the assumptions, the claim of setting up urban renewal program may just be a pipe dream.