This paper explores the federal urban renewal program in terms its adoption, its workability, and its requirement. The urban renewal policy intended to influence urban land use, specifically areas that hosted high populations. The federal government introduced this policy towards the end of 19 century. The policy has influenced the demographic and history of various cities. Although, the urban renewal policy has profound contribution to the current history of various cities, it has failed to meet the expectation of the common person. The political and legal justification that led to the adoption of the policy leaned on the idea behind elimination or prevention blight (Gordon, 2003).
Politicians and pundits alike have argued about the existence of slum in various cities. History recorded that in 1985, local officials declared Coronado blighted (Johnstone, 1998). This declaration had implication of the federal budget because it diverted tax collection. In addition, it sought supplementary funding from the state to support local schools. Fundamentally, the policy intended to improve the urban housing, which was unsafe. Unfortunately, the some local authorities used it to abate taxation. The spiraling numbers of people who settle in cities have been a great challenge to the authority. Largely, the local authorities have been using the growing number to declare an area as blighted. The definition of blight stems from the public activities that advance into areas allocated for the industrial properties.
Further, the creation of blight extended into residential areas. The local authority and the federal government have been observing blights as regions that breed crime because the people who settled in the slum areas had the following characteristics; persons who lost or had no connection with home life, persons whose homes lost the decency to support home life. Other than the aforementioned characteristics, substandard housing bread immorality comprises public health as well as the civic integrity. Politicians have responded to the above challenges by enacting the urban renewal policy. The policy worked towards reforming urban governance, influencing urban planning, and zoning efforts. The municipalities had limited capacity to rehabilitate the blight conditions thereby making the home rule, which was applicable in many states ineffective. Other constraints included the protection of welfare by the police. These challenges necessitated the politicians to define methods that could influence the housing conditions. The federal government involved the local authority in policy implementation. The passing of the National Housing Act in 1937, created provisions that enabled local public authorities in the housing sector to acquire loans for construction of low cost housing. The legislatures refined the National Housing Act in 1941 thereby enabling municipalities to seek grants from federal government. This is was credible development because the provisions in the urban redevelopment laws influenced the removal of blighted areas and construction of low-income housing facilities. In addition, the new law enabled corporations to buy blighted areas, using the federal funds and sell these lands to private developers. The system did not last without challenges. Critics have observed that the federal law deferred the determination and definition of blighted areas thereby influencing the corporations’