By and large, mayors are pragmatists. They've got snow to remove and potholes to fill, schools to run and crime to fight. Literally and figuratively, they must keep the trains running on time, or hear loudly and decisively from voters and constituents.
That pragmatic spirit was evident on Monday, when the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution condemning Arizona's anti-immigrant law and calling on the Federal government to quickly pass commonsense immigration reform. The resolution criticises the Arizona law as "unconstitutional and un-American," calls for its repeal, and opposes any copycat legislation in other parts of the country.
This year's presidential campaign has not involved the "urban decline" rhetoric that rallied politicians - and policymakers - to the cause of cities in the mid 1960s and late 1970s. Instead, as Alex MacGillis pointed out in Sunday's WaPo, Senator Obama
"has adopted the framing increasingly favored by many mayors and urban-policy types - promoting America's cities based on their strengths, not their failings."
This framing involves a slight shift of perspective from urban cores to metro areas. In many ways, this optimistic view of cities as nestled within metros (which aren't as politically, or racially, charged as cities) is productive. Economics backs up the sunny view, as MacGillis notes, with the majority of the nation's GDP generated and of its population and jobs located in metro areas.
But the champions of the metro perspective fail to defend the political relationship - the partnership - that is necessary between the federal government and cities. In interviewing mayors from cities across the country, I have consistently heard that cities will not truly prosper until mayors are provided more substantive opportunities to influence federal policy. This influence would extend beyond calls for more funds for the CDBG and COPS programs to provide mayors and other parochial officials occasions to highlight model local policies and coordinate with state officers and, indeed, with other officials inside their metro area.
Mayors have already joined together in ad hoc groups to meet Kyoto Protocol targets and in official organizations like the Conference of Mayors, but they have little formal means to influence federal policy. If mayors are heard at all, they are heard to be begging for money; if they receive money, they often receive too little or are constrained in its use. Providing mayors a platform for influence, exchange, and coordination - similar to Senator Obama's White House Office of Urban Policy - would capitalize on the economic power of metro areas while restoring urban policy to its proper place in national discourse. At its best, this would mean strengthening the power and authority of mayors at the federal level--something that Obama's transition team should embrace.
In today's WSJ, June Kronholz points out that few mayors become president. They have often been overlooked when they should be empowered. Today, mayors nationwide overwhelmingly want the next presidential administration to reverse that trend.
A recent interview DMI's MayorTV did with Mayor Dannel Malloy of Stamford, CT explores the much-needed political partnership between cities and the federal government. Check it out.
(One of the most devastating consequences of Bush Administration policy--not just the financial meltdown we are now experiencing--has been the systematic neglect of state and local governments, which have suffered two of the worst financial crunches in history under Bush. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The financial crisis has dug in its heels and Treasury's plan to buy up troubled assets hasn't been able to dislodge them. There have been numerous reports that the crisis has spread outward from Wall Street to afflict auto dealerships and the commercial paper that businesses and public institutions use to meet payroll. But when The New York Timesreported last week that cities, states, and local governments are having difficulty in bond markets - stoking fears that infrastructure projects, services, and payrolls will have to be canceled or scaled back - MayorTV decided to set off to several cities to ask mayors how the financial downturn is affecting them.
Our first stop was Stamford, Connecticut where Mayor Dannel Malloy was anything but optimistic about the economy.
This post was written by Harry Moroz and cross-posted from the DMI blog.
"We need to imagine just what a clean, safe, efficient, dynamic, stimulating, just city would look like concretely - we need those images to confront critically our masters with what they should be doing - and just this critical imagination of the city is weak."
Campaign websites - like town hall speeches, candidate adverts, and whisky drinking - are fair game when analyzing the presidential candidates. Indeed, when a few big picture issues like health care or the Iraq War dominate campaign conversation, these websites can be the curious voter's only entrée into a candidate's views on niche issues. Likewise, when the ravenous punditocracy belabors the collective consciousness with stories of vitriolic pastors and gas tax holidays, the campaign websites can be the honest voter's only escape to meaningful policy, disassociated from reality as it may be.
That is why I feel so comfortable applauding Senator Obama's recent addition of an "Urban Policy" tab to the dropdown menu in the upper-left-hand section of the horizontal toolbar labeled "Issues" on his campaign website. In fact, Obama had several months ago released an initial urban plan that called for a White House Office of Urban Policy, "promise neighborhoods" to combat concentrated poverty, increased money for reverse commuters, and an affordable housing trust fund. Senator Clinton, too, had released a plan for "revitalizing our cities" that called for increased funding for early education, green buildings and green jobs, and infrastructure. Both candidates' plans would revive helpful programs that have been left, as Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta might put it, to shrivel up and die. Fair enough.
STATE BLOGS
