The Privatization of Community: Implications for Urban Policy
Wealthy and exclusive residential areas closed off from the rest of the population by fences and gated entrances have existed in the United States since the nineteenth century [Kennedy 1995]. Today the "private neighborhood" is no longer limited to the rich. Neighborhoods in middleand low-income areas have also followed the trend toward privatization. In existing neighborhoods, fences and gates have been installed to restrict access by "outsiders." In new housing developments, access is limited both physically through street design and legally, because the entire neighborhood is privately owned.1 Inside the "privatized community," street maintenance, recreational facilities, landscaping, planning, and even public safety are controlled and funded by homeowners. In essence, private groups, often composed entirely of unpaid volunteers, have supplanted many local government functions. The trend toward neighborhood privatization has important policy implications that will affect all urban residents-both inside and outside of the "privatized neighborhood." Relying on homeowners' groups, community activism, and voluntarism will undoubtedly increase individual responsibility as well as the total amount of "social capital" in urban areas-a trend welcomed by many conservative policymakers and urban analysts. However, the quality and scope of this social capital are likely to change dramatically. As individuals become more involved with local neighborhood issues, they may become less concerned about problems in the wider metropolitan area. Increased neighborhood cohesiveness may produce less social in-