Urban villages have role in development

For many years urban villages have been a controversial issue in the development of our cities. Some people, usually city managers, regard the existence of these collections of shabby and old houses among higher and modern buildings as a stain on the appearance of a modern city, and have called for their removal.

One reason they cite to support their argument is that these areas are usually inhabited by migrant workers and lower-income people, which they believe results in chaotic management and insecure conditions.

Is that true? Absolutely not. Why not take more care of these urban villages before they deteriorate to such bad situations as some people claim? Why haven't city management departments provided these villages with the necessary facilities and public services as they do to other administrative districts? Urbanization is essentially the process of farmers and lower-income people flowing into cities. The problem is that, in this process, many of our city authorities only provide communities of "native dwellers" with decent public services, while paying less attention to those inhabited by migrants or lower-income people.