Break Up the Liberal City (Commentary)

[M II A II R II K]

Break Up the Liberal City


MARCH 25, 2017

By Ross Douthat

Read More: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/o...eral-city.html

.....

For many of their inhabitants, particularly the young and the wealthy, our liberal cities are pleasant places in which to work and play. But if they are diverse in certain ways they are segregated in others, from “whiteopias” like Portland to balkanized cities like D.C. or Chicago. If they are dynamic, they are also so rich — and so rigidly zoned — that the middle class can’t afford to live there and fewer and fewer kids are born inside their gates.

- If they are fast-growing it’s often a growth intertwined with subsidies and “too big to fail” protection; if they are innovation capitals it’s a form of innovation that generates fewer jobs than past technological advance. If they produce some intellectual ferment they have also cloistered our liberal intelligentsia and actually weakened liberalism politically by concentrating its votes. So has the heyday of these meritocratic agglomerations actually made America greater? I think not. --- The hive-mind genius supposedly generated by concentrating all the best and the brightest has given us great apps and some fun TV shows to binge-watch, but the 2000s and 2010s haven’t exactly been the Florentine Renaissance.

- We should treat liberal cities the way liberals treat corporate monopolies — not as growth-enhancing assets, but as trusts that concentrate wealth and power and conspire against the public good. And instead of trying to make them a little more egalitarian with looser zoning rules and more affordable housing, we should make like Teddy Roosevelt and try to break them up. --- First, the easy part: Let’s take the offices of our federal government, now concentrated in the vampiric conurbation of Greater Washington, D.C., and spread them around, in poorer states and smaller cities that need revitalization. Vox’s Matt Yglesias has proposed a version of this idea — distributing various health and science and regulatory agencies to Detroit or Cleveland or Milwaukee.

- But as Yglesias concedes, there’s only so much that breaking up D.C. will do. Which is why we’ll go further, starting with the deep-pocketed elite universities clustered around our bloated megalopolises. We’ll tax their endowments heavily, but offer exemptions for schools that expand their student bodies with satellite campuses in areas with well-below-the-median average incomes. M.I.T.-in-Flint has a certain ring to it. So does Stanford-Buffalo, or Harvard-on-the-Mississippi. A similar tax would apply to large nonprofits: If you want your full tax exemption, show that you’re employing people in lower-income states and cities.

- Meanwhile new business tax credits would encourage regional diversification, while the state and local tax deduction would be capped, making it more expensive for the upper class to live in and around high-cost, high-tax metropolitan areas. And the F.T.C.’s mandate would be creatively rewritten to include an industry’s geographic concentration as a monopolistic indicator, letting it approve mergers and acquisitions and trustbust with an eye toward more dispersed employment. Finally, because we can’t forget the media: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s funding for flyover-country stations would be expanded, not cut, and a new Corporation for Local News would fund newspapers in smaller cities and rural areas.

.....

[Crawford]

I think Douthat has it reversed. We should "break up the rurals" and stop subsidizing these dying areas. Cities are the sources of the country's current dynamism.

And he confuses correlation/causation.

[pdxtex]

and isn't every city a liberal city?? of the 50 largest city propers, only 12 mayors are republicans. democrats only have themselves to blame for urban inequities if they are the ones in charge. its not entirely their fault, but socialist wants and capitalist frameworks don't mesh so well. the meltdown of the election and city budgets across the country are a direct result of poor spending and social politics. while the the left spent the last two decades pointing "ism" fingers across the aisle, centrist conservatives quietly came on board with social justice anyway. really. I think city government should get out of the housing industry all together act more like a utility, road, fires, police, schools and park. not housing though, that's too complex and unwieldly to address by yourself. dunno, im watching the have's and have nots play out on the west coast first hand. what we lack in crushing ghetto violence we make up for in trash strewn street camping by drunks and addicts (if we allow camping, it will alleviate our homeless problem!! no, it will make it worse.) the street scene in urban Portland has eroded greatly in the last 5 years. so don't break up the liberal city, learn how to spend your (I mean my) money better and enforce your own laws.......

[the urban politician]

I like the idea of spreading the Federal Govt around. No reason it should all be located in DC

[ChargerCarl]

I agree with his sentiment, but the obvious solution to me is to just have the Federal government step in and strip cities of their right to exclude others through land use regulations.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I agree with his sentiment, but the obvious solution to me is to just have the Federal government step in and strip cities of their right to exclude others through land use regulations.

Who do you think it is that mandates subsidized housing in new developments? It's some level of government but it's almost certainly not the city. Just out of pragmatism, developers will build as far away from the poor as they possibly can if their target market is the rich. I don't blame them. I would not only want to protect the money I have locked up in development, I would want to know that I'm not at risk of being robbed on a regular basis because the federal government (or state/provincial government) wants to mix things up for whatever idealistic reason.

It's a function of personal choice for the rich and a lack of them for the poor. Nobody necessarily wants it that way but that's the way it is. Since I'm one of the "poor", I can completely understand why Bill Gates isn't buying the property next door and building a mansion on it.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I like the idea of spreading the Federal Govt around. No reason it should all be located in DC

It isn't. Quite a lot's in Maryland and Virginia. And that, of course, is only the parts in the DC metro. Every town of any size has a "Federal Building"; the military has bases all over the country; the courts have their 9 circuits covering the country, each with an Appeals bench sitting in a regional capital (and a minescule percentage of federal court cases ever actually makes it to the Supreme Court in DC); agencies like the VA and IRS employ far more people outside the DC metro than in it (nobody sends their tax returns to DC and few sick vets get medical care in DC).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Who do you think it is that mandates subsidized housing in new developments? It's some level of government but it's almost certainly not the city.

No?

San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that all market-rate projects of 10 units or more contribute to the City’s affordable housing stock. There are three ways for a project to do this – build 12 percent of the Below-Market-Rate (BMR) units on-site, build 20 percent of the units off-site on a separate parcel of land or pay a fee equivalent to 20 percent to the Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH). These percentages are slightly higher in certain parts of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan (ENP). Additionally, project sponsors have the option of dedicating land for affordable housing if they are building within ENP zoning. Because of their complexity, the off-site and land dedication options are rarely chosen.
Currently, a BMR unit for a rental project is priced at approximately 55 percent of the Area-Median-Income (AMI) and 90 percent of AMI for a for-sale project.

http://www.sfhac.org/policy-advocacy...ing-ordinance/

That's a city ordinance and as far as I know this is the way most such mandates get imposed.

This, of course, is "affordable" housing for the working middle class as well as the working poor. "Public" housing for the poorest of the poor is usually built using federal grant money but still the initiative to seek the grants and build the housing is local.

[hipster duck]

Schuyler County, New York.
Population growth (2000-2010): -4.9%
Median HH income: $36,000
Per capita income: $17,039
Distance to Cornell University from Watkins Glen (county seat): 24.1 miles.

As someone said in the Times' Picks: "what good is Stanford Buffalo when the locals can't even graduate from high school?"

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

As someone said in the Times' Picks: "what good is Stanford Buffalo when the locals can't even graduate from high school?"

Which is, in part, why Cornell is spending billions in research-oriented investments in NYC and not Upstate. They're building a new tech campus, massive expansion of medical campus, and adding law and business programs in Manhattan.

Ithaca is a great town and surrounded by gorgeous scenery, but you could never grow a Silicon Valley from such an isolated location (there isn't even a freeway to Ithaca, and the nearest real metropolitan centers are four hours away).

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Who do you think it is that mandates subsidized housing in new developments? It's some level of government but it's almost certainly not the city. Just out of pragmatism, developers will build as far away from the poor as they possibly can if their target market is the rich. I don't blame them. I would not only want to protect the money I have locked up in development, I would want to know that I'm not at risk of being robbed on a regular basis because the federal government (or state/provincial government) wants to mix things up for whatever idealistic reason.

It's a function of personal choice for the rich and a lack of them for the poor. Nobody necessarily wants it that way but that's the way it is. Since I'm one of the "poor", I can completely understand why Bill Gates isn't buying the property next door and building a mansion on it.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[599GTO]

I'd rather die than live in red America.

Disgusting people.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Which is, in part, why Cornell is spending billions in research-oriented investments in NYC and not Upstate. They're building a new tech campus, massive expansion of medical campus, and adding law and business programs in Manhattan.

Ithaca is a great town and surrounded by gorgeous scenery, but you could never grow a Silicon Valley from such an isolated location (there isn't even a freeway to Ithaca, and the nearest real metropolitan centers are four hours away).

Not by Cornell but resources are being invested upstate on technology. Certainly not Manhattan, Silicon Valley or Austin standards but it's rising. Albany has a decent tech presence and even my shitty hometown is getting a multi-billion dollar nano research center and plant. Upstate, NY lacks in a lot of things, high-end higher education is not one of them.

[10023]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

and isn't every city a liberal city??

I redacted the rest of your post, because it's quite simple really.

The fundamental difference between the political left and right in the US is that the former values public goods and the latter does not. City living requires this as well - people share infrastructure, services, parks, etc and live cheek by jowel with their fellow man. In rural areas, or in postwar suburbs, a man's home is his castle and people are not faced with this reality. No need for public transit, one gets everywhere by car. No public parks, one has their own backyard.

It's not a coincidence that cities are "liberal" in the American context.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

you could never grow a Silicon Valley from such an isolated location (there isn't even a freeway to Ithaca, and the nearest real metropolitan centers are four hours away).

THE Silicon Valley, 1900-ish:


https://www.google.com/search?q=Sili...-H21OvP3IU_fM:

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

I redacted the rest of your post, because it's quite simple really.

The fundamental difference between the political left and right in the US is that the former values public goods and the latter does not. City living requires this as well - people share infrastructure, services, parks, etc and live cheek by jowel with their fellow man. In rural areas, or in postwar suburbs, a man's home is his castle and people are not faced with this reality. No need for public transit, one gets everywhere by car. No public parks, one has their own backyard.

It's not a coincidence that cities are "liberal" in the American context.

You don't think the current-day liberality has anything to do with the concentration of poor minority folks, dependent on government and its benefits, that developed after WW II? Were cities notably liberal before the war? We know that various "progressive" and left-wing movements of the early 20th and late 19th century had rural origins such as the "Democratic Farmer-Labor Party" of the upper Midwest and William Jennings Bryant's campaign against the gold standard which was a creature of very urban Wall Street and it's colony, Washington DC. Even as late as the 1960s, noted liberals like Hubert Humphrey had rural roots (in his case, Wallace, South Dakota until, in his 30s he moved to Minneapolis and became its Mayor).

Looking at election result maps from before WW II what sticks out far more than urban state/rural state divides is Northern/Southern divides with New York and Illinois going the way of the farm belt more often than the way of the former Confederacy.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by 10023

I redacted the rest of your post, because it's quite simple really.

The fundamental difference between the political left and right in the US is that the former values public goods and the latter does not. City living requires this as well - people share infrastructure, services, parks, etc and live cheek by jowel with their fellow man. In rural areas, or in postwar suburbs, a man's home is his castle and people are not faced with this reality. No need for public transit, one gets everywhere by car. No public parks, one has their own backyard.

It's not a coincidence that cities are "liberal" in the American context.

i agree, there is definitely a certain segment of the right that is not cut out for communal living, those aren't the people im speaking about though. you can be conservative and an urbanist, that just means you are cautious and take fewer risks. but the assumption that if you don't vote democrat, you are socially intolerant is the democrats achilles' heal. but yes, planning is still a social science so there is lots of theory involved. we still need abstract thinkers too, but not across the board. that's my other point, too many liberal ideas and without equal amounts of caution to counter balance them is a bad idea. if the election is any indication of things to come, the future of successful city leadership will come from ideas brought by both sides. independent voters represent 42% of the country's voter bloc and it would behoove democrat leaders to listen to them. ive tried to explain to friends from berkeley why they are nothing like great lakes democrats. one is a social platform, the other is a labor platform, and democrats run their cities almost exclusively based on social agendas. they lost the election because of this and they need to do more of the latter.

[tablemtn]

M.I.T.-in-Flint has a certain ring to it.

University of Michigan already has a large satellite campus in Flint. For that matter, Rutgers has a big branch campus in Camden. There are other examples. These types of things really aren't panaceas or even necessarily all that beneficial so long as the structural factors of decline are the same.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Not by Cornell but resources are being invested upstate on technology. Certainly not Manhattan, Silicon Valley or Austin standards but it's rising. Albany has a decent tech presence and even my shitty hometown is getting a multi-billion dollar nano research center and plant. Upstate, NY lacks in a lot of things, high-end higher education is not one of them.

Yeah, Upstate has a pretty strong university presence. The challenge in Ithaca is different from the challenges in, say, Buffalo and Syracuse.

Buffalo and Syracuse are Rust Belt cities, with all the attendant issues. Ithaca is actually expensive, desirable and fairly fast-growing, it's just located in the middle of nowhere. You can't build a research/startup nexus in the wilderness (even a Buffalo would have a much better shot).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

THE Silicon Valley, 1900-ish:

OK? Manhattan was wilderness once too. Columbia's campus was a forest until 120 or so years ago.

Silicon Valley developed around an urban center of millions, and a nexus of major research universities and govt. investments. Stanford is located in the 3rd largest economic center in the nation. Ithaca is basically in the wilderness.

It would be like having Stanford in the High Sierras, in which case it would still be a fantastic research university, but it would have never spawned Silicon Valley.

Cornell is a fantastic research university too, but the Cornell-related startup activity is centered in NYC, with good reason. You can't build a startup nexus in the middle of nowhere; but it's quite feasible in the economic capitol of the planet.

And Cornell isn't messing around; they actually beat out Stanford (and Carnegie Mellon and others) for the rights to build a Manhattan campus. They're making enormous investments, and have really shifted to a dual campus university, with city and country campuses.