Innovative US Mayors, has their time passed?

Charlie calls our attention to the Financial Times special section on Cities published last week and the article "Why city mayors are stepping up to tackle global problems: Urban leaders are challenging populist positions on climate change and migration." From the article:

[using Milan as the example] Since City mayors confront everyday management problems — such as how to handle traffic or waste disposal — their offices are focused on pragmatic problem solving, not ideology. More important, cities tend to be on the winning side of technological innovation, at least compared with the hinterland. It is no surprise that the political tenor of mayors is more progressive than elsewhere. “Everyone keeps talking about populism versus non-populism, but I think the key label is cities versus countryside,” says Mr Sala. “In the countryside voters are going to the right, but in the cities they are more progressive.”

Whatever the reason for the trend, it is unlikely to disappear soon. Moreover, as city leaders spread their (relatively more competent) policy wings, they are rising in visibility and ambition.

But what is equally notable is that even when mayors are not vying for national leadership, they are increasingly flexing their muscles to move into policymaking areas that used to be the preserve of national governments. In the US, for example, the Democrat mayors of cities such as Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Chicago have pushed an aggressive “green” agenda — in contradiction to President Donald Trump’s policies.

Indeed, the cities have been so united in this direction that some quietly lobbied to join the Paris Climate Change Accord in their own right, as quasi partners — although the accord is supposed to be between nation states (and the US has withdrawn).

US cities have also collectively defied Mr Trump on immigration policy, and taken a different stance on internet regulation, too (San Francisco, for example, became the first city to ban facial recognition technology in May). Some cities are also trying to set their own export and investment strategies. In London, Mr Khan has made no secret of his desire to remain in the EU, and has called for special exemptions for London from the Brexit rules if the UK eventually leaves the EU.

This is important stuff, but in some sense it's more social policy than programmatic, although environmental policies (buying green energy, promoting transit) are both social and programmatic.

But I feel like the earlier period of "innovative mayors" has peaked.

There is always talk in the US about how "states and localities" are "laboratories for democracy" in that innovations can be "piloted" at a level below that of the national government, and in turn influence the federal government in terms of creating new programs and helpful policies.

A great example of this is how the "Obamacare" program is based on a program created by a then Republican Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney--later a presidential candidate and now Senator from Utah.

Governing Magazine is a trade publication featuring these kinds of best practice stories.

One-way "innovation" when it's supportive of deregulation.  However, these days this opportunity is often "trumped" by ideology.  It seems that Republicans are fine with devolving authority to states when it supports deregulation and conservative policy making and not supportive when states and localities aim to strengthen regulatory oversight and progressive policy.

For example, one of the reasons that the EPA was "out to lunch" on water problems in Flint, Michigan is because for all intents and purposes, regulation of sub-state water and sewer authorities has been delegated to states, and many states are somewhat lackadaisical about this.

Another example is King George County, Virginia.  It happens they've been out of compliance with water and sewer regulations for years, the system is now on the point of bankruptcy, and somehow the State of Virginia never really noticed ("King George paying a price for years of neglect of water and sewer systems," Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star).

Then again, there is California, a national leader on energy ("California, the clean energy leader," San Diego Union-Tribune; "U.S. Climate Change Policy: Made in California," New York Times), although this is an illustration of the space created by progressive national leadership, but also the ability to have strong regulations.

States vs. localities.  Of course, plenty has been written about how many state legislatures pre-empt actions by cities.  For example, before tobacco regulation became much more prevalent, pro-tobacco business legislatures like Virginia's forbade cities from passing anti-smoking ordinances.  These days many states are passing laws pre-empting cities and counties from passing "plastic bag bans," etc.

Term limits make it hard to embed innovative practice.  A big problem is that most mayors seem to last from one to three terms maximum (of course there are exceptions).  And two terms for Governors.  And successors tend to define "innovations" not as supra-superior policies deserving of continuation, but as "something that my predecessor did and instead, I need to create my own policies and programs and hype them."

Smart growth land use policy is a great example.  In Maryland, it was introduced by a Democratic Governor, so the Republican successors have de-emphasized it whenever possible.  In Massachusetts, it was introduced by a Republican Governor (again, Mitt Romney) so it was repudiated by his Democratic successor.

In DC, programs and practices are regularly reversed, scuttled or left to sputter by Mayoral successors, such as the public housing rebuilding program New Communities or the separately created Anacostia Waterfront Development Corporation--programs initiated by Mayor Williams.  Mayor Fenty absorbed all city-initiated development corporations into the Deputy Mayor's Office of Planning and Economic Development and New Communities has never had much support by Williams' successors.  Each mayor puts forth their own "commercial district" initiatives.  One mayor supported streetcars, his successors not so much, etc.

Another example is how during the Obama Administration, many cities were creating new positions of "innovation officers" and units, often around information technology, but not only. Philadelphia was a prominent example and the function no longer really exists. The same is true for many other cities.

It seems like the innovation officer position and office time has passed, although Mayor Garcetti in Los Angeles did hire Christopher Hawthorne, then the architecture writer for the Los Angeles Times, to serve as the city's design director.

-- "Christopher Hawthorne, LA Times architecture critic to become Chief Design Officer for the City of Los Angeles" 2018
-- "All the talk of e-government, digital government, and open source government is really about employing the design method ," 2012

Mayors want the credit. The thing is, to have innovative programs, you need good staff, especially directors, and there are many instances where Mayors don't like to spread credit around. A perfect example is the policing innovations in New York City implemented by William Bratton. Both Bratton and Mayor Guiliani wanted the media attention, accolades, and credit for the successes. But ultimately Bratton reported to Guiliani, who fired him.

It's hard to be innovative when you're broke.  Many cities are pressed by legacy infrastructure which costs a lot to fix and maintain and have pension costs that usually are unmanageable, and lack the ability to significantly grow revenue streams.  Big cities also have to deal with the rising cost of dealing with "the homeless."

The tail wags the dog.  Some "innovation" especially in the mobility space like ride hailing or autonomous vehicles, is being spearheaded by the private sector, forcing cities to catch up, but often they aren't leading the process.  And at the end of the day, how transformational is the practice, and does it create more value rather than less?

Maybe best practice is being embedded as standard procedure?  Smart city initiatives, resilience in the face of climate change (although the Rockefeller Foundation just junked its 100 Resilient Cities initiative), "apps for democracy," open source government -- New York City recently created an online app that automatically checks for eligibility for government programs ("New York City Demystifies Social Service Benefits Screening," Government Technology), rather than having people go to various offices ("Police rip toddler from mother's arms at benefits office," AP News)"), clean energy initiatives, stormwater initiatives, etc.

Mayors as systems integrators.  One of the ways I think about this is how in a city or county government, where myriad agencies are responsible for various goals and objectives, and perform in what many term "silos", mayors and county executives have the ability to be "systems integrators" and bring the various actors and programs together to cut through the knot and create something more transformational.

It's easier in small places?  West Sacramento, California ("Small City, Big Goals: How an Unconventional Mayor …," Governing), Carmel, Indiana (The GOP Mayor Pushing Climate Change Policies," Governing), Greensboro, NC and Spokane, Washington (past blog entry), Charleston, SC, etc.

It's easier in big places?  All the stuff that Mayor Bloomberg did in New York City.  Or maybe that was just 'cause he was rich?

-- The Bloomberg Legacy (website)
-- "Bloomberg's Bruised Legacy," New York Times

Maybe we should be focusing on the design method?

-- "Social Marketing the Arlington (and Tower Hamlets and Baltimore" way," 2008
-- "Best practice bicycle planning for suburban settings using the "action planning" method," 2010
-- "All the talk of e-government, digital government, and open source government is really about employing the design method," 2012
-- "Illustration of government and design thinking: Boston's City Hall to Go truck," 2013
-- "World Usability Day, Thursday November 9th and urban planning," 2017