The Growth Machine needs to be subtle when it comes to elections | Voters need to see some benefits

The Growth Machine thesis argues that despite intra-elite competition, local political and economic elites are united around a pro-growth agenda centered around land use intensification and the increase of property values and rents.

From the abstract of "City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place."

A city and, more generally, any locality, is conceived as the areal expression of the interests of some land-based elite. Such an elite is seen to profit through the increasing intensification of the land use of the area in which its members hold a common interest. An elite competes with other land-based elites in an effort to have growth-inducing resources invested within its own area as opposed to that of another. Governmental authority, at the local and nonlocal levels, is utilized to assist in achieving this growth at the expense of competing localities. Conditions of community life are largely a consequence of the social, economic, and political forces embodied in this growth machine.

Political science has a competing thesis, that of the "urban regime."

I don't think these theories are competing so much as different sides of the same coin. "Growth Machine" theory explains the motivation of "the land-based elite," while "urban regime" theory explains in detail how the land-based elite operates and functions, even though it is weak on understanding the motivations and primacy of business interests ("The shortcomings of rival urban theories," G. William Domhoff)

---

Since cities can't up and move unlike a manufacturing plant or a corporate headquarters, focusing on "growth" makes sense, especially in a post-industrial economy, since cities are reliant on property and sales taxes for the bulk of their revenues.  (Most cities don't collect income taxes but some do.  Although such taxes can be an inducement to relocate.)

The New York Times has an interesting article ("Business Chiefs Seek N.Y.C. Mayoral Candidate, With $100 Million as Bait") about how two leaders of that city's economic and political elite--David Doctoroff, now CEO of Google's Sidewalk Labs, former Deputy Mayor under Michael Bloomberg, and a former high level Wall Street executive, and prominent real estate mogul Stephen Ross--are positioning in advance of the 2021 local election cycle, with the aim of shaping the political agenda of the city in the face of the post-George Floyd environment.

Here's why they're worried:

• constant protests and an increase in crime
• calls to defund the police
• an accentuation of the city's left-oriented politics touched off in 2018 by the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Congress and various progressives to the State Legislature, and the expansion of this progressive coalition in the 2020 election cycle
• anti-development responses to the since scuttled Amazon HQ2 in Queens and now proposals for intensification in the Industry City section of Brooklyn
• the pandemic has crushed the city's hospital system and health care network
• thousands of NYC residents have died from the coronavirus
• many people, especially the well off, are leaving the city fearing that density is a serious risk factor for covid
• but an increased focus on telework has implications on the strength of NYC as a business center and the value of commercial real estate
• intertwined with the pandemic-induced recession
• NYC has an unemployment rate of 20% right now, and 
• the tourism, retail, nightlife, and hospitality industries are being crushed by a lack of business
• which has tremendous negative impact on the commercial real estate market for retail and hospitality space
• further stressing the retail sector, which was already contracting as a result of high rents and the impact of e-commerce.

From the article:

With less than a year before the Democratic mayoral primary, New York City’s business leaders are actively plotting how best to use their influence and money to shape the race to become Bill de Blasio’s successor.

Stephen M. Ross, whose Related Companies is building the biggest mixed-use private real estate development in the United States, has floated the idea of helping to raise $100 million for the right candidate in the 2021 mayoral race, according to two people involved in those discussions.

Mr. Ross, along with Daniel L. Doctoroff, Mr. Ross’s friend and the chief executive of Sidewalk Labs, the tech company affiliated with Google, are concerned that the city’s economic woes could endanger New York City, home to their investments and their legacies.

... Mr. Ross has also been advising Mr. Doctoroff, a Democrat who served as deputy mayor under Michael R. Bloomberg, on a proposal that Mr. Doctoroff is drafting to create a nonprofit to help shape an agenda for the next mayoralty. Mr. Doctoroff said he is not part of Mr. Ross’s fundraising effort.

The goal of Mr. Doctoroff’s Coalition for Inclusive Growth would be to develop and release a policy framework for the city’s future, and to do so by Jan. 15, six months before the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary. The primary is likely to determine New York City’s next mayor and the composition of much of New York’s City Council.

Cities are funded by taxes.  I joke that while I consider myself a left leaning progressive, progressives think of me as conservative, because I am not against development and I argue that cities need positive growth in residents and business activity, especially if we want to be able to pay for all the things we say we want to improve the city's quality of life--universal pre-K, child care, family leave after pregnancy, investments in schools and transit, etc.

More residents helps support the provision of public services--better parks, libraries, schools, etc. and in turn are customers supporting a wider range of retail and business amenities, leading to the revitalization of neighborhood commercial districts, among other benefits.

The tension between the elite agenda and social programs and social justice.  So I do understand where Ross and Doctoroff are coming from.

The problem is that like Howard Schultz's or Michael Bloomberg's unsuccessful campaigns for president on a platform of social liberalism and the lowest possible taxes on the wealthy and corporations, elites tend to be not very good at articulating how a corporation-focused pro-growth agenda benefits "everybody else."

At the local level, the issues are comparable.  Support for and low taxes on the economic elite is the primary focus, even if this means stinting on social programs because they are costly, with not too much interest in social justice, unless it is absolutely necessary "to keep the peace."

(Last year, Amazon pumped a lot of money into local elections in Seattle, because of previous efforts to impose a capitation tax on the number of employees.  Their candidates got clobbered.  See "Today's local elections in Seattle: the clash between progressive and business interests.")

From the standpoint of a "tale of two cities" ("'Two cities' collide as Chicago's social time bomb explodes"), business elites aren't focused on addressing multi-generational poverty systematically, but are ok with school reform and workforce development efforts. 

By contrast, progressives want to expand social programs and social justice, and see real estate development not as a revenue generator for city budgets, but as a giveaway to real estate interests, like Stephen Ross, whose Related Companies is building the super luxe Hudson Yards ("Billionaire Stephen Ross Insists Hudson Yards Is For Everyone. And He’s Unhappy That No One Believes Him," Forbes), but for more ordinary projects too.

Animation of the Hudson Yards development.  COURTESY RELATED-OXFORD; BLOOMBERG

Attentions are focused on real estate because today's projects, especially in NYC, are almost exclusively targeting the super rich ("Inside the $250 Million Apartment at 220 Central Park South," Forbes).

And even if developments aren't for the super rich, today's new housing, built at current prices for land, labor, and materials, is more expensive than existing housing, and has limited impact on slaking price and rent appreciation which are a concern for existing residents of more moderate means.

Business interests aim for more business friendly elected officials.  Even though most elected officials are reliant on campaign donations from business, and business interests have special access and dominate the way that elected officials look at the world, that's not enough for the growth machine.

They want their officials to be much less focused on initiatives that impose social considerations on their operations, from the $15 minimum wage and liberal leave policies and especially taxes.

This comes up in DC almost every election cycle.  In DC, the Federal City Council, the DC Chamber of Commerce, and the regional Greater Washington Board of Trade + the editorial page of the Washington Post are the leading "coordinating organizations" of the growth coalition, and they put up pro-business candidates, usually against elected officials they consider not properly focused on business interests.

But almost categorically, these efforts are unsuccessful, because the reality is that DC's (or NYC's, excepting Staten Island) electorate trends Democratic for sure, and more left generally.

The business supported "insurgents" are terrible at explaining how their pro-business agenda is an agenda that supports the interests of the electorate.

Instead, candidates focus their arguments around their interests, that the City Council and particular officials are anti-business (e.g., "Wall Street takes aim at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in party primary;" Financial Times).

Resentment over the Bloomberg mayoralty.  Quotes in the Times article communicate lingering resentment over the Bloomberg mayoralty in NYC.

Progressives saw his agenda as focused on stoking the real estate market and very much a top-down corporate phenomenon (especially concerning "school reform") that wasn't supportive of citizen input--even while at the same time Bloomberg's personal philanthropy gave hundreds of millions of dollars to arts organizations and nonprofits.

The continued focus on zero tolerance policing and "stop and frisk" didn't build a positive relationship with communities of color, even as the city's crime rate continued to drop.

Despite the crime drop, brute force policing didn't change much, and still resulted in deaths from police brutality like Eric Garner, without much in the way of accountability.

Yet, NYC improved on many dimensions, as seen in the addition of almost 700,000 new residents since 2000, even after the devastation of 9/11.

But clearly people felt there was a focus on the wealthy and not too much concern for how the city was changing on many dimensions.

Many people saw a disconnect between the rewards reaped by people and corporations at the top and the limited "trickle down" benefits to people in the middle and bottom.

And plenty of neighborhoods still languish, despite the improvements in Manhattan and the Brooklyn waterfront.

The Growth Machine needs to spend some time in self-reflection.  Yes, NYC's economy is driven by real estate and various business sectors like finance.

But if these business interests want the electorate to choose more candidates that are more business friendly, they're going to have to give up some of their rewards.

Because the electorate needs to see that they benefit from a pro-business agenda.

That means higher taxes, something that the business interests almost categorically reject.

And support of investments in social programs, social justice, a more humane system of policing, new forms of public safety, and community investment.

Maybe Doctoroff's Coalition for Inclusive Growth can pull that off, just as DC's Federal City Council has created the DC Policy Center, which does focus more on issues of social inclusion compared to its parent.

But if the CIG agenda doesn't start off by listing higher income taxes on the super wealthy both on income and property, and the elimination of various protections and incentives for the real estate industry,  then we'll know which way the wind is blowing.