{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020833333333333332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026041666666666665, 'mean_word_length': 5.408333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Urban Renewal and Land Use Conflicts

Economic critiques of urban renewal have used two lines of argument. In most cases, the replacement of old neighborhoods by new buildings for business, institutional or higher-value residential use is accepted as a proper function of government, but the failure of the authorities to provide new low-income housing or adequate monetary compensation for those evicted is condemned. (1) Conservatives like Martin Anderson have attacked government land-taking as an interference with the market for the benefit of special interests, implying that blocking urban renewal would strengthen capitalism. (2) Neither critique, however, places urban renewal within an overall description of land use changes in a metropolitan area or within