More on the Lack of a National Urban Agenda
by Dan Walsh on February 27, 2008 in All Politics is Local: An Urban Policy Blog
Two articles talk about the presidential candidates’ lack of comprehensive urban agendas. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser wrote an article in January that analyzes the policies of the major presidential candidates and explains why they fall short. The recent article by Bruce Katz from the Brookings Institution argues that candidates should pay more attention to cities because they are the drivers of the nation’s economy. Katz goes on to summarize how cities spur innovation. Both articles talk about how the lack of clear, overarching goals leads to policies that pull in different directions. The articles also argue that changes in the national economy require policies focused on innovation and people. However, the Katz article emphasizes the importance of investing in certain industries and places, which is an approach that Glaeser rejects in his article.
The Katz article reads like a call for help, whereas Glaeser goes beyond the argument for why cities matter and critiques each candidate’s urban policies. For example, Glaeser makes the good point that education policy is a central part of urban development and applauds Clinton for focusing on the issue. The following quote from the Glaeser article is especially interesting: “Republicans now ignore cities altogether, and Democratic urban policies cater too much to well-organized urban interests. We need national politicians to pay more attention to urban problems, and this will only happen when we start judging them on their urban policies.”
A New Urban Agenda
by Dan Walsh on February 19, 2008 in All Politics is Local: An Urban Policy Blog
The New York Times this morning has an op-ed about the need for a new urban agenda, and it reminded me that the major candidates for President have not yet laid out comprehensive visions for how they are going to improve American cities. The Times emphasizes the political reasons for the candidates’ lack of urban agendas–mainly that rural states hold early primaries, so the candidates must spend more time talking about rural issues. Although I agree that politics matters a great deal, and that Iowa’s issues are extremely important, politics isn’t solely to blame for the lack of attention to urban issues. The problem lies more with a lack of federal support for cities and weak coalitions of urban interests.
The op-ed highlights proposals put forward by a few of the candidates, and I agree with many of them. For example, I agree with the leading Democratic candidates in that it is ridiculous that the Earned Income Tax Credit has not been raised in fifteen years. EITC has shown itself to be an extremely effective at providing relief for America’s poorest working families. Furthermore, it provides incentives to lift them out of poverty – a long term solution rather than a band aid. However, this isn’t enough.
The article also talks about what Bloomberg is doing in New York. Bloomberg is doing some interesting things – notably his proactive approach to sustainability and going after out-of-town gun dealers, but most cities do not have his range of options. The article argues for national leadership, but I think it’s important to note that, like mayor Bloomberg, city leaders do not have to sit back and wait for Clinton, Obama or McCain to make up their mind about what to do with America’s cities. Let’s take a look at how our mid-range cities – cities such as Minneapolis, MN; Raleigh, NC; and Richmond, VA - are reshuffling the political deck and outlining visions for the future.
