This article, ‘I love cities, but they don’t all love me back,’ advocate for disabled says before Habitat IIIhttp://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/i-love-cities-they-dont-all-love-me-back-advocate-disabled-says-habitat-iii is taken from a forum called Habitat III, World Cities at a Crossroads. It shows the "breakthroughs, trends, and innovations from cities around the globe," and one the topics it deemed important was the discussion of what can be done in cities for those who are disabled in some manner. There were thoughts of putting up audio street signs for those who are visually impaired, making signs simpler to understand for those who are mentally impaired, and even making the sides of signs less sharp so that those who walked by would be less likely to injure themselves. Widespread plans toward acknowledging and accepting disabled people into public areas is needed, but with so many different types of disabled people, it is hard to come up with one solution that fits all needs. The U. N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities came into affect in 2008, and in the countries where the treaty was ratified (United States not included), these countries are already working to create spaces that cater not only to the able but to those with special needs. A draft of the New Urban Agenda for the U. N. mentioned disabled people 12 times but hesitates to outline exactly what it will do concerning these people. Though progress is slow, disabled people are speaking out and beginning to have their voices heard when it comes to the built environment.

These two texts were very interesting and similar in many ways. Both deal with the issue of disabled person's accessibility to public and even private areas, and both argue that not enough is being done. The Habitat III article does a good job highlighting the different kinds of disabled people while the Teaching with Trauma article glosses over the various types of disabled and only really talks about wheelchair access. The Habitat III article speaks of policies that are being put into affect already to help provide access to the built environment to disabled individuals, while Teaching with Trauma does not identify any real laws going into place to help people. Perhaps the reason for this is because the Teaching with Trauma article speaks about policies in a particular area while the Habitat III article deals with protocols in places around the world.

Now that our society is becoming more aware of the labels and stereotypes put on people by certain word usage, I find myself wondering which term of reference is preferred by those who are "disabled" in some way. I wonder if handicapped is a better, nicer term, or is there some other word that is more sensitive to the feelings of those individuals. Disabled/ disability seems to carry such a harsh connotation with it, like those people are not as good as others, but then again, so does the term handicapped. Perhaps, like in many situations, it is not the word that needs to change but the attitude about those types of individuals. Changing word choice is just a band aid for when people have poor images of certain kinds of people who are different from them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPmGW-GDHA

I never really considered widespread wheelchair access or access for people with disabilities before and the hardships they have to endure to be anywhere. I know people who have a hard time getting around exist, I see them and the handicap doors that I walk through, but I never considered how some places could be barred to them and they could not have a voice in the public because of it. Because some people cannot get to a certain place, their voice is not heard, and that is troubling. I only see a person in a wheel chair as a rarity, but is that because they cannot get to the place where I am rather than my previous notion that there just are not that many people who are disabled?

I was not sure what this meant, so I found an article that explains what these are http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/3585?e=blackstone_1.0-ch02_s01 The article deals with the topic of a sociologists approach to situations. Micro is small group interactions, sometimes just the self alone. Meso is at a larger group level, such as a business, and macro is large scale interactions, situations that affect entire continents and global relations.

Stratify means "to arrange or classify," according to Google. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=stratify

Through italicizing experts, the author trying to make fun of the term in reference to these people in a display of satire. However, why is that the case? Obviously she must not think all of their knowledge or opinions are sound, or she would not feel the need to mock them as an expert. What is an expert in her eyes then? Is it someone with the personal life experience (not necessarily any schooling) that qualifies them as an expert, or the one who has done all the research and is very aware of the textual knowledge of a situation?

She literally just had a sentence similar to this a couple paragraphs ago. "The notion of the right to the city, understood as a right to urban life, involves both the political, social and material dimensions of the urban...begin by developing a conception of spatial justice." She is becoming repetitive in her argument already. The points she is making are not new, and she is not elaborating, but rather restating. Her word choice is even the same.

Is she arguing for access for people with disabilities, or arguing specifically for wheelchair access? I do not think the author does a good job portraying what she is actually trying to address in that regard, as people with disabilities are not just people stuck in a wheel chair.

She announces that planning in urban areas is a social justice issue, but I think it has always been one. Planning in urban areas has always affected people, and when it does that people either stand behind it or try to stop the process. One example is the Atlanta Beltline, where many people took the idea as their own and used it to aid themselves in their environment. Plans such as low income housing were a big deal for people, and that was a social justice issue to make sure everyone could enjoy the Beltline and all kinds of people could have access. Another prime example is segregation within the American south. Black people put on all kinds of protest and marches to raise awareness for their plight and try ti change the environment around them for one geared toward equality for races.

The fact the author switches between different modes, such as third person and first person perspectives is unnecessary and disruptive. The context of the article is most assuredly going to be about accessibility and the built environment for people in wheelchairs with disabilities, so there is no need for the author to go and state the point of the essay in their own words.