Cities are also the primary hub of economic activity, with their density and consolidated resources absolutely necessary to commerce.
And yet we lack good systems for adequately funding cities for the benefits they provide. We gratefully accept the wealth that they spin into their surrounding regions, into their nation, and into the world. But we largely ask them to fund themselves only with their own tax revenues. We fail to adequately feed the engine to ensure that it continues.
This fact about cities was brought to mind by a recent story in the San Francisco Chronicle about a pair of teenagers who are lobbying for the City of Piedmont to be incorporated into the City of Oakland. Their effort is quixotic. With no adult support and an off-handed rejection by the Piedmont mayor, their lobbying will go nowhere.
But they’re still making a good and valid point. Piedmont probably isn’t paying its fair share to support Oakland, the economy of which allows much of Piedmont’s affluence.
On that point, a recent article by the Brookings Institute found that the 300 largest metropolises in the world contain only 19 percent of the world’s population, but generate 48 percent of the world’s GDP.
Here in the North Bay, the economic activity of San Francisco and Oakland has a great effect on our lifestyles. The North Bay would be a very different place without those two cities.
Similarly, the rural areas of the North Bay rely on the nearby towns. The west counties would be less successful without the towns of San Rafael, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa.
But the mechanisms to compensate the cities and towns for being engines of economic prosperity are scanty and imperfect. One method is the return of tax dollars from state and federal governments through grant programs. However, those programs are directed from the top down. Congress, the Legislature, and numerous federal and state agencies, set the rules by which the funds are to be used and then disburse the funds to the cities most willing to comply with the rules.
Effectively, cities, the fundamental unit of human organization, are reduced to being supplicants, forced to beg for treats.
A fine example is the decades-long history of Federal Transportation bills. As Charles Marohn, founder of StrongTowns recently wrote for Better Cities and Towns, the approach of federal transportation policy has been to fund new roads and highways, leaving the local governments without adequate funds to provide often greater cost of long-term maintenance, leaving the local governments in worse condition than before the funds arrived. The failure of the funding is so profound that Marohn suggests that many communities would be better off without federal transportation funds.
I’m not yet willing to go that far, but the problem he highlights is real and profound. I sit on the transit advisory committee for a North Bay city. In that role, I watch how grant funds are distributed to maintain and to operate the local bus service. Some of the grants come with few strings, which is great. But others come targeted for specific purposes that may or may not conform to the highest priorities of the city and its residents.
It’s important for regional or national standards to be promulgated. It would make no sense for San Francisco to design its streets for 80,000 pound tractor-trailers if Daly City designs for only 40,000 pounds. But the establishment of reasonable standards has become irrevocably entangled with the purse strings.
Not only is the creatively of cities being stifled, but many hours of time are being wasted at all levels of government in managing compliance with regulations that may not be beneficial.
I don’t have an answer to the knotty problem. But I know that cities are legitimately entitled to financial support from the surrounding regions that rely on them for economic vitality and that the current way of providing those funds is ill-conceived.
Follow-Ups and Schedule Notes
Toronto Bike Lane: Remember the tussle over the removal of the Jarvis Street bike lane in Toronto? The lane is now fully removed. And Toronto has installed parking in the area formerly occupied by the bike lane, further infuriating bike lane advocates.
But in a boggling twist, the mayor who spearheaded the effort to remove the bike lane was ousted from office. A judge directed that the mayor be removed for lobbying for a city contribution to his personal charity, voting for the contribution, and then refusing to refund the contribution when so directed by an arbiter.
Bicycle advocates rejoiced. In perhaps the best comment on the situation, Movemeant tweeted, “Every time a bike lane is removed, a mayor loses his wings.”
Driverless Cars: Atlantic wrote about a race between the professional racecar driver and the computer in a driverless car. The human won, but barely. And the key point may be how the passengers in the driverless car quickly gained faith in the computer.
On the same subject, an NYU professor writes in the New Yorker about the ethical challenges posed by driverless cars, such as the decision to endanger either the passengers in the car or the potentially greater number of passengers in another vehicle. Professor Gary Marcus poses the problem of how to program ethics when ethics are continually evolving to address new and different situations.
Petaluma Urban Chat: The next Petaluma Urban Chat will be Tuesday, December 11, 5:30pm at Aqus Café. All are welcome, with particular encouragement to newcomers. At this meeting, we’ll begin discussing the StrongTowns Curbside Chat booklet that can be found here.
As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated. Please comment below or email me. And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (email@example.com)