In addition to the flap with Governor Paterson, there is another democrat that doesn't see eye-to-eye with President Obama. In this case, Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is resisting Obama's wishes to delay a new federal transportation bill until 2011. The Obama administration has indicated that it would rather see an 18-month extension of the current bill, rather than go through a contentious round of debate over federal transportation reform at such a politically sensitive time (i.e. health care reform).
That is too bad for cities and metro regions, which are clamoring for reform of the status quo. A new bill backed by Oberstar, the Chair of the House Transportation Committee, would funnel more federal dollars directly to metropolitan regions rather than through state governments, where money is often diverted to the less populated and less productive areas of the state (this was certainly true of the federal stimulus dollars). Additionally, the bill would streamline the processes that currently prevent new transit projects from being completed or even begun.
But Oberstar does not seem like he is willing to wait. Instead, he is proposing a three-month extension to the current bill.
It seems that if Oberstar has his way, cities and metros will have a lot more control of their federal transportation funds. In that case, what should our metros do with the money? According to conservative policy wonks, we should be identifying farmland on the fringes of our urban areas for future highways. To them, transit is a boondoggle and only takes money away from roads, which are inherently better. Wendall Cox even asserts that transit systems sap the productivity from our urban areas!
"One common claim is that transit will provide alternative mobility. However, transit trips tend to be twice as long as car trips and no transit vision has ever been put forward that would replicate the efficiency of the automobile."
But Cox then makes an even weirder claim: transit is an inefficient waste of time and money, except when it is not. Cox goes on to talk up the importance of transit in the country's most productive metropolitan regions: "None of this is to deny the inestimable value of transit in serving the nation's largest downtown areas (such as Manhattan, Brooklyn, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco)."
File this one under "Hypocritical, conservative/libertarian." First, the Heritage Foundation thinks that some estimates under-represented the actual number of protesters who showed up in DC last weekend to tell Congress just how angry they are about having to pay taxes and stuff. "Metro delivers hundreds of thousands to 9/12 rally," Heritage proclaims, citing the number of people who rode DC's subway system to the National Mall-nearly half a million people!
Heritage's assertion struck me as a bit odd, especially considering the fact that Heritage loves to tell us that no one really rides transit in this country and that we'd be better off just building more roads. Lucky for the protesters, though, that people with more sense made the decision to build a wonderfully efficient mass transit system in DC. Otherwise, I'm not sure that any type of road network could have handled the crowd.
Hopefully the protesters learned that our highly productive urban centers need robust mass transit systems. Indeed, mass transit allows our urban centers to be even more productive. If mass transit service was discontinued in our urban areas it would result in 646 million hours of delay and the consumption of 398 million more gallons of fuel, all at a cost of $13.7 billion.
But incredibly, the same people that rode Metro to the National Mall to protest taxes and government spending were upset about Metro's level of service. "These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration," wrote Texas Representative Kevin Brady. A spokesman for Brady commented that "there weren't enough cars and there weren't enough trains."
What! Maybe we could provide more transit service if those in Congress, especially transit-hating Republicans, provided more funding for transit. Oh, I forgot. We shouldn't invest in transit because no one rides transit.
In the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis, the federal government has focused on stabilizing the housing market by assisting homeowners that are facing foreclosure. On The New Yorker's financial page, James Surowiecki explains that the Obama administration has not been very successful in its attempts. Comparing the administration's approach with that of Congress, Surowiecki writes:
"The Obama Administration has done better, rolling out a seventy-five-billion-dollar mortgage-modification program, which offers mortgage servicers financial incentives to renegotiate loans. So far, it's managed a couple of hundred thousand mortgages, but that's been dwarfed by the rising number of foreclosures."
It is encouraging that the Obama administration is making these efforts. The foreclosure crisis is not just harming those who have lost or are in the process of losing their home, but also entire neighborhoods and communities that are experiencing declining property values because of the number of foreclosed properties in the vicinity. As this op-ed in The New York Times argues, we should not "blame the victim" of the housing crash.
But what is also needed is a revamped effort by the federal government to assist those who rent their homes and are also finding it more difficult to pay for basic necessities. In the top ten largest U.S. cities, more than fifty percent of households are renters. Renters in these cities are faced with crushingly high rent burdens. In New York, the private rental market is hurting those families that have seen rents continually rise while paychecks have shrunk. As a result, over 500,000 New York City families pay more than half of their household income in rent.
The federal programs targeted at renters are insufficient. In many cities, waiting lists for Section 8 rental vouchers are half a decade long. At the same time, HUD is distributing grants to local governments to demolish public housing to make way for developments that have fewer units than the previously existing public housing projects. Additionally, federal programs related to rental housing focus almost exclusively on the very low-income end of the rental market. But middle-class renters in cities are also hurting. And while federal policy currently goes out of its way to assist middle-income homeowners and aspiring homeowners, it does practically nothing to help those who currently rent.
Rental housing is mostly an urban issue. The Obama administration has pledged to examine all areas of federal policy that affect urban areas to see if the current policies are effective or if they are actually harming cities. While efforts to expand homeownership certainly have their place in our federal housing policy, efforts to assist renters have so far been the missing link. After all, when a family can barely cover rent and keep food on the table, how are they meant to save enough money for a down payment for a home?
In a move that will surely delay the prospect of economic recovery, California is diverting $4 billion from local government coffers in order to help plug the state's $26.3 billion budget deficit. However, the drama playing out in California resembles the plight of cities across the country as they scramble to continue providing essential services in the face of rapidly declining revenue. Although California's budget provisions are the most blatant example of states passing the burden onto local governments in order to cover their own budget gaps, my colleague Harry points out that cities are also being shortchanged when it comes to stimulus spending.
Unfortunately, the sacrifices that statehouses are asking city and county governments to make will only prolong the country's economic slump and hinder long-term growth. California is planning on keeping $900 million in gas tax revenue from cities and counties, keeping construction crews out of work and prolonging critical repair work that will lead to deteriorating transportation infrastructure. The state is also looking to keep $1.3 in property taxes that was set to go towards local redevelopment agencies. While most private construction has hit a standstill, these public-private partnerships are still supporting construction projects. In Los Angeles, this would mean putting 2,300 construction jobs at risk.
Even more troubling is the elimination of health benefits for children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations. As Jonathan Cohn notes at The New Republic:
The consequences will be kids not getting glasses to see the blackboard, missing school for toothaches, and otherwise delaying care. One ailment or accident on the playground would put families at risk of financial ruin, and needed care will be delayed or avoided altogether. Children's and other community groups don't mince words when they say that cuts at this scale mean kids will die.
The short-sightedness of these policies is breathtaking. By not properly treating illness or other medical conditions, these children are more likely to have negative educational and employment outcomes later in life. Fortunately for those living in San Francisco, the city established a program that will provide health coverage to those who will no longer qualify for public health insurance. Hopefully the city's program will be able to handle the influx of those recently kicked out of the state insurance programs. Those living in other areas of the state will not be so lucky.
The experience of California cities, as well as cities across the country, makes a compelling case for a more direct role for the federal government in urban affairs. As Harry points out, there isn't much cities can do to stave off budget cuts during recessions, the exact time when we need a stronger social safety net. But the federal government can support local governments during these times. This type of support is necessary to ensure that cities and metropolitan regions, the nation's economic engines, do not sputter out.
In less than four months, New York City voters will decide if Mayor Bloomberg deserves a third term in office or if one of his challengers, William Thompson or Tony Avella, should take the helm. In addition, voters will be electing nearly fifty other city officials, from members of the City Council to City Comptroller and Public Advocate. This is a critical election. New York City needs elected officials that will promote the best solutions for the problems that New Yorkers face every day.
It turns out that New York City could learn a lot from other cities across the country. In a new report from DMI, No More Delay: Proven Policy Solutions for New York City, we examine six areas of policy in which New York City has failed to address significant challenges faced by New Yorkers: economic opportunity, housing affordability, criminal justice, workplace standards, environmental sustainability, and health care. In each issue area the report highlights policy solutions from other cities that have proven records of success.
Workplace standards: Nearly one million working New Yorkers do not receive any paid sick days, contributing to negative health outcomes, the spread of contagious disease, and lower worker productivity. However, San Francisco guarantees all workers paid sick days to care for themselves or a sick loved one. The policy is not only a meaningful benefit for workers, but also aims to increase employee productivity and reduce the spread of contagious disease. In addition, members of the business community in San Francisco agree that the policy has not been a problem, despite their initial opposition.
Economic Opportunity: New York City gives out millions of dollars a year in tax breaks to private companies that may not need subsidies and that go on to create poverty-level jobs-or few jobs at all. But in Minneapolis, subsidy recipients are required to create living wage jobs. If the jobs are not created, the subsidy must be paid back with penalty. The policy ensures that the public receives significant benefits when tax dollars are invested in a business subsidy deal.
Criminal Justice: New Yorkers falsely confess to crimes they did not commit, harming public safety and damaging the integrity of the criminal justice system. Washington, DC requires that all interrogations be videotaped in their entirety. This policy creates a permanent record of interrogations, makes police officers less vulnerable to allegations of abuse, and prevents the miscarriage of justice.
Housing Affordability: New luxury housing has pushed up housing prices in the city, resulting in displacement of long-time residents. San Francisco is taking steps to increase the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to build affordable units when constructing new market-rate housing developments. This policy not only preserves economically integrated neighborhoods, but also provides neighborhood benefits.
Last month, Senators John D. Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill that would establish performance-based goals for our surface transportation system. The bill would, according to Senator Lautenberg, "establish a national policy that improves safety, reduces congestion, creates jobs, and protects our environment."
Among these goals is to reduce the amount Americans drive, or more specifically, to "reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis." Basically, Americans should be driving less-fewer trips over shorter distances. This has as much to do with the way we use our land as it does with transportation policy. Where we choose to live and work and get the groceries largely determines how much we drive. We are driving longer distances to work and to complete all the other little errands that populate our days.
However, Gabriel Roth argues in a Wall Street Journalop-ed that reducing the amount we drive should not be a policy goal of the federal government.
Reducing the total miles traveled-whether the length or number of trips-means people would have to reduce the activities they want and need to do. People would be "coerced," in effect, to live in less desirable places or work in less desirable jobs; shop in fewer and closer stores; see their doctor less frequently; visit fewer family members and friends.
Roth's claim of coercion is absurd. Americans have already chosen to drive less. VMT per person leveled off some time around 2001 and began dropping around 2005. At the same time, public transit ridership has increased dramatically as cities build or expand rail systems and build higher-density, mixed-use developments.
Other claims, such as the assertion that reducing VMT will drive down economic growth, are equally absurd. Just look at driving trends. The reduction in VMT per capita began when the country was experiencing quite rapid economic growth.
On the other hand, there are many good reasons why we should, as a nation, be driving fewer trips over shorter distances.
The housing bubble provided some clear indicators that there is something wrong with our current patterns of housing development. The suburban sprawl model that fueled the growth of many Sunbelt economies, from South Florida to Phoenix to southern California, sputtered out, leaving foreclosed homes, half-finished developments, and never-filled strip malls in its wake. It is difficult to determine cause and effect, but it is clear that the financial crisis had its roots in the wave of foreclosures that has swept the country.
But, according to Joel Kotkin, once the dust settles we should just continue on our current trajectory. Kotkin believes that a "renewed quest for homeownership could underpin a sustainable recovery."
However, there is nothing sustainable about our current housing model. It has real costs on our pocketbooks, our economy, and our environment. The Economist seems to agree.
Cities across the country are feeling the pinch of the recession. Facing budget shortfalls, many cities are considering privatizing valuable pieces of their infrastructure or outsourcing government services to private contractors. These deals are meant to give cities a large infusion of cash or to reduce municipal costs. However, privatization is a bad deal, for city governments, for the public they're meant to serve, and for labor standards.
When we speak of municipal privatization, we're talking about two different things. The first is the leasing of infrastructure to private companies. These types of deals involve the private company paying a large sum up front to the municipal government. In return, the private company is responsible for maintaining that piece of infrastructure, such as a toll road or parking meters, and in return the company collects any revenue. Chicago did this with its parking infrastructure, leasing its parking meters and garages to a private company for a one-time payment of $1.2 billion. In return, the company controls the parking rates and collects the revenue for 75 years.
The other type of municipal privatization involves contracting private companies to perform city services. For example, practically the entire child welfare system in Florida is privatized, meaning that services such as foster care were outsourced to the private sector.
Cities pursue these types of arrangements in order to cut costs. The thinking is that competition drives down the cost of providing these services.
However, the reason that outsourcing these services is often less expensive is because private contractors do not have the same type of labor standards that municipal governments often do. A story in the Miami Herald explains how some South Florida municipalities are privatizing city services.
"Leaders in Weston and Southwest Ranches, who also rely heavily on contractors, extol the benefits. They say because contractors perform tasks as needed, they are cheaper to use than full-time workers. And contractors' benefits are often less generous than those of their counterparts in the public sector, allowing governments to hold down costs."
When I sat down with him last summer, Frank Jackson, the soft-spoken mayor of Cleveland, looked puzzled when I asked if the Republican Party could ever formulate an urban agenda. Republicans know very well, he finally responded, that urban issues are important. But stating them "is not part of the Republican agenda." After all, he wondered, how could a party so supportive of a destructive war in Iraq talk about rebuilding urban centers?
Jackson and I were talking during the final stretch of the presidential campaign. Barack Obama was about to energize urbanists throughout the country with his "Metropolitan Strategy for Urban America", unveiled at the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In his speech, Obama referred to cities as engines of prosperity, rather than warrens of poverty and homelessness, and soon complemented the speech with an "urban agenda" that has now been adopted, complete with an executive Office of Urban Affairs, as administration policy.
Meanwhile, Senator McCain was silent about urban issues. When he was finally asked a question about inner-city crime, the Christian Science Monitornoted that the candidate "expressed sympathy" and then "gave a long, winding answer that touched on the international reach of gangs and drugs and the need to seal the borders." McCain thus faltered even when asked about inner-city crime, the favorite conservative "urban ailment".
Against this backdrop, Jack Kemp should be remembered as the lone conservative voice to speak about the importance of cities at least since Nixon's New Federalism turned the federal government's back on urban areas. As George H.W. Bush's Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Kemp advocated a federal urban policy that encouraged homeownership for low- and moderate-income families and used tax breaks to reinvigorate depressed urban areas through Enterprise Zones. Bush largely silenced his HUD Secretary, while critics protested Kemp's overemphasis on homeownership.
Wendall Cox, writing for NewGeography.com, can see the future of urban development, and he doesn't like it. In an article called, "Enough 'Cowboy' Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies", Mr. Cox rails against the efforts that some states are making toward addressing our land-use patterns. In particular, Mr. Cox takes aim at California's SB 375, which has the aim of creating communities that offer their residents a choice in transportation modes, thereby reducing the state's dependence on automobile travel and oil, and the emission of greenhouse gases.
Mr. Cox basically takes offense at the state's efforts to create higher-density, mixed-use, walkable, and transit-accessible communities. He states:
Higher densities are likely to worsen the quality of life in California, while doing little, if anything to reduce GHG emissions.
This is based on two assumptions: 1) that higher density equals more traffic congestion and 2) that higher density equals higher housing prices.
