The new administration’s urban policy is here (h/t Aleem Kanji).
My first reaction is to be nice and say we should all give them time to get their act together.
But right now, there’s very little new thinking or strategy here, and even less evidence that anyone has a grasp of role location plays in the economy and of the powerful geographic forces that are reshaping the global and U.S. economies. It’s essentially a retread of Clinton-era urban policy, with the Bush-era homeland security add-on, plus some more emphasis on green and neighborhoods.
I sure hope they don’t start pouring stimulus money into this smorgasbord approach…
Your thoughts…
January 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The biggest challenge for an urban policy led by the federal government is that government programs have a tendency to be “one size fits all”. There are certainly some needs America’s cities have in common, but America’s cities and regions are incredibly diverse and have many different needs and often require radically different strategies and solutions. Actually, that’s a good thing, because a single “school solution” is analogous to an “urban monoculture” in crops – it’s vulnerable to catastrophic failure.
Consider just the Midwest. What do Chicago, Detroit, and Indianapolis have in common? Certainly some things, but each of them probably needs to pursue very different courses of action.
The best thing an urban policy initiative could do is devolve decision making as much as possible to the local level. The challenge is, how do you do that without just writing checks that might end up poorly spent? It’s a challenging balancing act.
I would propose that the feds should consciously consider which items lend themselves to more national solutions, versus local or regional solutions. And, any urban policy office should have lots of points of presence out in the field. It can be difficult to see the needs of places like Dallas, Cincinnati, Boston, etc. if you are always in DC. A mix of centralized and decentralized is needed, and of course the balance between them is the key. It will never be perfect, but we can try to find the rough sweet spot.
PS: This same problem exists on a smaller scale at the state level.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
It’s essentially a retread of Clinton-era urban policy, with the Bush-era homeland security add-on, plus some more emphasis on green and neighborhoods.
That’s actually a nice summary of the Obama administration so far. It describes his appointments to a T.
So… if that’s the thinking behind his appointments, why would his actual policies be any different?
January 21st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Headline: Mass Transit Got the Shaft to Make Room For Tax Cuts
Article here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/oberstar-mass-transit-got-the-shaft-to-make-room-for-tax-cuts.php
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 am
…it’s still early, let’s give him a chance
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 am
I am concerned that the stimulus being discussed will result in a further “bailing out” of suburbia: highways, auto-companies-making-anachronistic-large-vehicles, bailing out suburban home owners with unpayable mortgages. In doing so, it would be propping up the old American economy rather than embracing the new, global and interconnected one.
At the same time, I’m with Hayden — let’s give him and his urban team a chance.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:21 am
—off topic, but I knew you would like to see—
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123250312889900913.html
University Upgrades Boost Commercial Sector
By MAURA WEBBER SADOVI | SPECIAL TO THE WSJ
Even as Madison, Wis., suffers arctic-like temperatures, there is a warm ray of hope for the commercial real-estate industry.
The city’s academic sector is seeing a building boomlet while developers in other parts of the country slam the brakes on new office buildings, stores and shopping centers.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Give him a chance, but don’t leave it to chance. Lobby for what you want.