In light of serious budget deficits in many nations around the world, what governments should and should not spend money on is being heatedly debated. A school of thought holds that because restoring old constructions in metropolises would cost a colossal amount of government funds, authorities should allocate this money to building new houses and improving infrastructure like roads. I completely disagree with this notion, as we could have other ways to both restore the old buildings and construct new housing areas and enhance the road quality at the same time.
It is understandable why I believe that despite costing numerous state budgets, it is still worth spending on the restoration of old buildings in urban areas. A key rationale is that it can pose a threat to the residents who live near these constructions. This is predicated on the assumption that after being used for years, almost all of these houses cannot maintain their qualities. They are likely to collapse at any time, resulting in higher chances of causing casualties among many residents nearby. Therefore, funding the old constructions to be restored is necessary in spite of the colossal amount of money required. My personal experience is that in my village, the local policymakers used to spend three million dollars restoring all the old buildings, which ensured the lives of thousands of people in the nearby area. My friends and neighbors also share the same experience, and they feel positive about the restoration of old buildings near them.
In addition to this, I opine that there are other ways to construct new housing and improve the quality of roads without affecting government expenditures on restoring old houses. First and foremost, plowing part of tax revenue back into building new housing areas and enhancing the road quality is a positive way without influencing government spending on the restoration of old constructions. Second, a plan that consists of building new houses and maintaining road standards can be achieved with international financial support. Vietnam is a good example. This country used to loan 5 million dollars from China and Thailand to construct new houses and improve the road quality, and it used its government funding to conserve a number of old houses in its urban areas. Although it was a large loan at first, after the living standards of its nationals were improved due to new housing areas and better road qualities without affecting the government’s purse, this country managed to pay for its loan after 3 years.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the government can spend a colossal amount of money on restoring the old constructions, and international financial support and plowing part of the tax revenue of taxpayers are two other ways to build new houses and improve the road standards without affecting the state budget.