Cities are
essential to human existence. More so
than nations, cities are how we organize ourselves. Nations are only a political overlay. The renaissance history of Europe is a
history of cities. It was only after
centuries of cities pushing humankind forward that nations entered the picture.
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 (davealden53@comcast.net)
