I recently
attended a presentation on the growing urbanism of Sacramento and the projects
that will help it to achieve a successful future.
I spent my
high school years in a suburb of Sacramento.
Like many youths, I was eager to see other parts of the world. At that age, I couldn’t visualize myself ever
returning to Sacramento. But in
adulthood, Sacramento looks far less provincial and boring. I welcome my occasional opportunities to
wander its leafy streets. And I find
that many of my classmates, who were just as eager to depart as I, have now
returned to the Sacramento area.
With my
enlightening attitude toward the River City, I was pleased about the number of urban
elements that are coming together in Sacramento, from transit systems to
mixed-use housing to civic amenities.
However,
there were a couple of disappointing moments during the presentation. Moments that cast doubt on our ability to
create healthy cities.
First, Congresswoman
Doris Matsui proudly explained that the federal government is now looking for “ancillary
benefits” for new projects, such as reduced emissions or improved access to
affordable housing. Those are admirable
benefits, but I was disappointed not to hear “economic sustainability” or “financially
supportable” on the list. If we don’t
look to long-term maintenance issues, we make our cities depending on
continuing federal largesse. And given the
news out of Washington, D.C. this week, that isn’t a good place for cities to
be.
Even more
concerning was a later comment by John
Dangberg, Assistant City Manager for Sacramento. Dangberg acknowledged that we live in a time
when cities are dependent on federal assistance for many projects and that the
federal funds don’t always conform to perceived local needs. As he described it, the role of a city is to
identify available funds and then to tweak the funding as much as possible to
serve local desires.
I’m often skeptical about the ability of a city to
accurately scope local projects, given the need to balance public opinion, the
agendas of elected officials, and the knowledgeable if sometimes
locally-ignorant input from consultants.
To refract that dubious consensus through the ivory tower prism that is
Capitol Hill is a recipe for the inefficient use of limited funds.
I’ve written
before that cities may be the best laboratories for 21st century
problem-solving. But for them to fill
that role, we need to give them the freedom to find their own paths.
I don’t mean
to criticize Dangberg for his comments. In
fact, his candor was refreshing. There
are times to criticize rules. And there
are times to swallow and to play the game under the rules that exist. It often takes wisdom to know the difference.
One last
thought. Some may interpret a call for
smarter government “investments” as a call for government austerity. I’m not one of those. I think government has the inevitable duty to
help us adjust to a world in which resources are stretched thin and dire environmental
consequences are looming. And to fill
that role effectively, government must be smart. Not small, but smart.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
