Change and/or municipal government

The book The Future Once Happened Here by Fred Siegel of Cooper-Union is considered within the academy to be quite a conservative tome. The book discusses the decline of center cities, using DC, NYC, and Los Angeles as examples. It came out it 1997. It countered mayors like Giuliani and Riordan, and Rendell in Philadelphia, vs. the mayors that presided over and perhaps accelerated decline.

I don't think of the book as conservative, just descriptive. (There are a couple concepts in there, the "riot ideology" and "dependent individualism" that I see expressed all the time within the city.)

Yet, there is no question that the decline of American cities was fueled by outmigration and federal policies and financing systems that favored suburban development, at the same time demands for resources to support people unemployed as a result of declining industries increased dramatically.

But there is a need to move forward regardless, especially when you can't count on the federal government to step up and reconcile policies and planning practices that continue to degrade center cities at the expense of other parts of metropolitan regions.

I used to joke in the early 1990s that I became an "inner city progressive" because my liberalism had been ameliorated by witnessing the scheleroticism of municipal dysfunction, and I didn't want to be tolerant of failure.

I think the City of Washington is on the upswing, but the fact is that much of the elite, and in DC the financial elite are the real estate development industry, are far more concerned about profit and profitmaking than they are "civic pride" and quality of life. So it makes it tough to muster real change.

Especially when government for the most part is committed to system maintenance, not change and not transformation. Cities need transformation.

So it's interesting that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has endorsed a Republican candidate for Mayor of Pittsburgh, for these very reasons. See "For mayor: Mark DeSantis is the choice for a new Pittsburgh."

Yesterday's column by Marc Fisher in the Post, about elections in Takoma Park, "Dormant Democracy: What, No Candidates? Even in Takoma Park?," is somewhat derisive about the lack of contested races there.

I used to be somewhat derisive of the small municipalities that ring DC on the Maryland side. Yes, most of the elected positions aren't contested and the turnouts are small. Maybe the City of Takoma Park doesn't have contested races this year, but for leadership positions that really matter, hey, check out the election for the board of directors for the Takoma Park-Silver Spring Co-op...

Seriously though there are some reasons that these communities, such as Mt. Rainier, Brentwood, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, etc., have low turnouts and participation. There isn't a lot of education and training for civic activity. I guess the U.S. still favors skilled amateurs... And most small municipalities have their elections in off years or at off times (elections in communities in Prince George's County are in April).

Face it, most people don't think about local governance all that much, unless they have specific problems, want a speed bump installed on their street, they have crime problems, or children in schools.

So having elections not at the "normal times" means low turnouts and minimally contested races. If you don't agree with me, look at the elections for the County Councils. Granted they are "higher" positions, full-time, with salaries and benefits, but they are contested.

People say that it's better to have local elections at off times, so that people focus on the requirements of the local situation. That may be the case, but then you're going to have to accept that there will be low participation in most dimensions, including the number of candidates, the number of contested elections, and the turnout.

I have come around on the value of smaller municipalities because it means that governance and more local needs are likely to be congruent.

E.g., in places like Takoma Park, the City sponsors festivals, they don't charge lots of fees for putting them on, unlike in DC. In places like Mt. Rainier or Hyattsville, the snow is removed immediately from all streets, including residential areas, when in the big city or in county areas without incorporated cities or towns, it takes much longer, if ever, for snow to be removed from residential streets.

Mt. Rainier has "trash" pick up three times/week. One day for yard waste (and every so often for bulk items), another for trash, and yet another for recycling. Etc.

In theory, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions could function similarly in a center city like Washington, but for many reasons they fail to do so. For one, it is almost impossible for a big city to be concerned enough to make its policies congruent with the needs at the neighborhood level. (Commercial district revitalization is a perfect example. Most DC government agencies do things that aren't supportive of neighborhood improvement and it's almost impossible to change such policies and actions. I have written about that plenty, so I won't go into it now.)

For another, I think that civic and social and community capacity in DC has been "poisoned" by being home to the national government. The idea of government as the solution for any and all problems has trickled down, even to the block level of the community. The idea and practice of self help and community organizing is weak in the city. (I suppose it was different in pre-Home Rule times.) When you become the government, you get co-opted just as revolutionaries do when they become the government in power. Maybe Jefferson was right...

On the other hand, the Brookings Institution produced a paper opining that part of the problem in Pittsburgh is that there are more than 400 different municipal and special districts in the multi-county region, dissipating attention, direction, and money. See "Pittsburgh: The Road to Reform."

When your resources decline, you have to streamline. Many townships and municipalities around the country, especially in the Detroit area, where tax revenues are declining and will continue to do so, are consolidating various services. This trend will likely continue, and here and there, there will be more examples of the center city combining with the county government (such as Indianapolis, Lexington, Louisville) in a consolidated government. In part to reduce the cost of services, in part to balance tax revenue capacity.

More of the same isn't likely to work, at all levels of government.