Nor will the
opportunities likely be limited to Detroit and Stockton. Much of how we’ve built our cities in the
past seventy years had led to financial distress. Detroit and Stockton may have reached
bankruptcy first, but there are numerous other cities, including some in the
North Bay, that are at risk of financial turmoil over the next decades.
This isn’t
to say that land use form is the only cause of municipal bankruptcy. There were multiple factors behind the
Detroit and Stockton bankruptcies, including failing local economies and poorly
conceived redevelopment strategies. And when
Orange County went bankrupt a few years back, it was largely the result of
financial ineptitude.
But land use
form plays a key role. It has been shown
that urbanism can reduce city expenses.
Had Detroit and Stockton made a stronger commitment to effective
urbanism over the past decades, the current financial distress would likely have
been lessened. And a commitment to
urbanism starting today would likely improve the post-bankruptcy outlook.
However, the
municipal reboots will depend, in part, on access to capital for new
infrastructure. Urbanism requires less
infrastructure per residential unit than does sprawl. But a conversion from sprawl to urbanism
still requires new infrastructure. And,
as Charles Marohn of StrongTowns points out, access
to capital may be impacted by the Detroit bankruptcy.
Condensing
Marohn’s cogently presented summary, Detroit has two kinds of debts, secured
debt, much of which is owed to lenders who have provided capital for improvement
projects in exchange for repayment from property taxes, and unsecured debt,
which is largely comprised of pension benefits owed to former and current
municipal employees.
Detroit is
in bankruptcy because it lacks the assets to cover the combined debt. The question is which type of debt should
receive priority in the allocation of remaining assets. The legal battles thus far in the Stockton bankruptcy
have focused on the same issue.
By law, it
would seem that the secured debt should come first. Capital markets provided loans in exchange
for access to revenue streams that continue to exist, so it would seem that the
loans should be repaid.
But the
Michigan State Constitution requires that pension benefits be paid. So the Constitution and the loan contracts
are in conflict. The conflict will
require legal adjudication.
I know that
many readers will side with the pension benefits, feeling that Wall Street
should take the financial blow. But, as
Marohn points out, the distinction isn’t that clear-cut. Many of the assets that were loaned to
Detroit came from invested pension funds.
Although overly-simplistic,
one can view the Detroit resolution as a contest between the pension benefits
of Detroit employees and the pension benefits of school teachers from across
the country. Not a pretty picture, is
it?
Perhaps the
best for which one can hope is a speedy resolution that leaves as many assets
as possible with the pensioners and as few as possible with the legal firms
charged with fighting the battle.
But there is
a final twist. If the secured loans aren’t
adequately covered by the resolution, a damper would be placed on future
lending to municipalities, denying cities the funds needed to convert from
sprawl to urbanism. Instead, cities
would be forced to look at more rounds of frenzied development, relying on
impact fees to keep the municipal ledgers barely in the black. The Ponzi scheme would continue.
Oh, what a
mess we’ve made of things. There are no
easy solutions. Instead, there will be
shared pain. But now is the time to
start making the necessary changes.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment