Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Economy and infrastructure: “What about us?”

Economy and infrastructure: “What about us?”
Getty Images

Dr. LaSheyla Jones, a grassroot urban planner, architectural designer, and public policy advocate specializing in implementing holistic approaches to address socially disorganized communities. She is a Public Voice Fellow through the OpEd Project.

As the White House, under the Biden-Harris Administration, touts an economic and infrastructure plan for Black Communities, many residents have found themselves marginalized by city highway designs that perpetuate inequality and hinder their quality of life. Communities are being redesigned without consideration of specific needs and values of disadvantaged individuals, perpetuating a cycle of city designs that disregards the concerns and aspirations of those whose circumstances often go unheard. This pattern leaves vulnerable populations wondering (to quote Michael Jackson’s lyrics in “Earth Song”), “What about us?”


For example, my hometown of Dallas is now ranked among the least affordable cities for homebuyers, with rising housing costs relative to average income making homeownership unattainable for many in the southern sector of the city. Individuals with average income have to allocate 41.48 percent of their monthly earnings to housing expenses for a median priced home, highlighting the disparity between housing prices and stagnant wages that perpetuates the wealth gap. One complaint is the policy’s emphasis on multi-family rental development over affordable single-family homes.

Oak Cliff, one of the largest neighborhoods located in Southern Dallas and often intermingled with areas identified as minority dominant and economically underprivileged, has once again become prime real estate for those looking to capitalize during an era of extensive gentrification. The extensive history of Oak Cliff communities, dominated by people of color, have experienced population displacement by way of white flight, steering, and redlining in which Dallas Segregation Ordinances effectively created segregated areas that are still clearly divided to this day.

Decades later, decisions for disadvantaged communities prioritize the desires of the economically and politically powerful rather than addressing the needs of those affected by government misinformation and propaganda. Many of these minority (specifically Black) communities, once home to residents that had accomplished home ownership and economic stability have been subjected to heavy eminent domain proceedings by local government to support freeway infrastructures and public facilities at the detriment of local inhabitants. In essence, communities of color in these areas are under structural, economic, and political attack and have been targeted by developers and government entities, while being unprotected by government policies.

Residents in communities like this face restricted access to affordable assets that enable wealth accumulation, such as homes, due to policies that do not hold responsible entities accountable. A lack of economic resources like banks in areas, such as communities South of Interstate 30, has created significant obstacles, as decision makers implement policies that label certain communities “high risk” and thereby deny them access to vital resources.

As Kathryn Holliday, PhD notes, “Highway development proceeded in parallel with housing policies created by the Federal Housing Administration to undermine economic viability of minority neighborhoods.” These systemic issues create bottlenecks and impede residents’ ability to thrive and prosper.

The misconception is that minority communities should appreciate government interventions for revitalization without considering the evidence of resident displacement and lack of input from those affected.

In contrast, revitalization efforts in wealthier and non-minority communities are approached as collaborative partnerships that consider the input of all stakeholders. This inclusive approach supports sustainable development that aligns with residents aspirations.

The Biden administration’s efforts to address systemic disparities in minority communities are commendable. However, it is crucial to recognize that investing in economic development and infrastructure without considering the true needs of residents and community members can be seen as irresponsible. Job creation is vital, but should empower disenfranchised communities to cultivate additional job prospects within minority communities.

U.S. government history demonstrates the significance of economic power. It is essential to adopt a holistic approach to urban development that encompasses people, structures, economics, transportation, and policy. Offering merely financial aid and constructing buildings will not suffice. We must strive for an inclusive approach that addresses the comprehensive needs of communities and ensures that the question, “What about us? ” is intricately considered and answered.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less