While centralized planning for a metro/region does have its benefits, it should almost always be ADVISORY ONLY, separate from the actual power. Similar to how an MPO(Council of Govertments) function, as a coordinator, facilitator, and clearinghouse. There is a big push out there now, however, for more regionalized governance. But read the fine print, these proposals rarely distribute the power even proportional to population, instead giving central cities inordinate amount of power. Other than with some transportation and certain big-ticket infrastructure issues, I don't really see any advantage in moving away from local control. Issue by issue coalitions and cooperative agreements can be just as effective, without creating a monstrous new beauracracy.
What are the big-ticket items in government planning? Schools and roads, maybe public utilities where the government still owns them, right? Land use zoning gets a lot of attention, but it is a small item, tax-wise.
The schools get the most attention at budget hearings, and the schools are the best thing the local government does. Not saying much, is it? The roads are a mess, engineering ignores the planners, and the public gets no input on road plans. Road plan public hearings are where the few private citizens that show up are told what is going to be done; sit down and shut up. Utilities are autocratic, but best-run of all because everyone expects water and electric to be there all the time without fail.
These other things, side yard setback, greenbelt easements, building height restrictions, are just background noise in comparison to the real issues.
The point there is that suburbanites probably don't contribute much to the taxes and philanthropy that keep symphonies and museums going, but many of them still attend concerts and benefit from this cultural aspect of the city.
major events (parades, big fireworks displays);
I've rarely seen a city with absolutely no parades or fireworks displays. But so what - people choose where they live and I don't really care what their reasons are.
I was thinking of events like the Boston Pops Esplanade concerts on the 4th of July, the Macy's Thanksgiving parade, etc.
and major league professional sports teams.
Tax leeches. Let someone else pay for them. If I want to see them, I'll go where they play; if not, screw 'em all. Just keep your hand out of my wallet to pay for them (or their stadiums or their tax breaks).
And I agree with you. I prefer our local Keys games to the more distant and much more expensive Orioles. But many suburbanites again benefit from urban proximity when they go to such sporting events.
That's not all, but that's a start.
No, that's crap. It's the same twaddle you hear from people who think that Broadway musicals or the ballet or Shakespearean plays or New Orleans jazz should be totally subsidized because it's Art(!), or it's tradition, or it's needed for our culture, or it would die out otherwise. Well, good! Let it die out - if people wanted it, they'd pay for it.
An admirable sentiment, how very libertarian of you. But there is a long-standing commitment in government to some level of cultural funding, partly due to the perception of shared heritage as a basis for social cohesivity. An example (though not for a city) are the preserved Civil War battlefields near me, Antietam and Gettysburg and Monocacy River (the three closest; Manassas is to the south over the river). I should also include Harper's Ferry! Our tax dollars pay for these because they are a shared heritage. The argument applies to museums, and to a lesser extent, cultural expression like art.
Many suburbanites get used to enjoying the perks of living near a city but don't contribute much to the "upkeep" of the urban environment. (A few wealthier suburbanites do, of course.
The main perk of living near a large city is in the high-end job opportunities that abound there (and rarely anywhere else). But at the same time, people *CHOOSE* not to live in the city because of: the high-cost-of-living, rampant crime, bad schools, liberal judges, corrupt cops, rent controlled housing, welfare programs, the bums, the stench, and a total lack of control over how to fix those very same problems.
There we agree strongly. The problem that is brought up by the maps and data is that these city problems migrate outward into the inner suburban ring as the outer suburb development expands. The question is what strategy can address that trend, which is consistent around many cities.
Also, many suburbanites complain about things like traffic and growth but don't want to take some of the more painful steps required to change those situations.
A good point. Regional traffic control and expansion is a valid concern for all parties. But if you let the city control it, you get the type of idiocy that Tampa paid for - a built up city convention center built downtown that loses money every year, no highway expansion outside of town, poor maintanence on surburban roads, and a complete lack of planning for future growth outside of the city center. Giving control to the city only leads to the squandering of those dollars on useless city improvements - a complete waste for the suburbs.
I don't think that the position Broder sketched for Oldfield was to the level of "let the city control it". It's more on the order of a commuter tax, loathsome as that is. What I see in the concepts as an idea I would support is a pooling of resources to foster cooperation rather than competition. Because cities will export crime to the suburbs, if you come up with a strategy that improves the city, you also aid the suburbs.
So while some of the things you say above are important concerns, I am in favor of some kinds of regional development planning, because I think that intelligent use of our resources is better than unintelligent overuse of them. Now, it's not always easy to get intelligent solutions out of government, but I think we can at least try to find some.
While intelligent use of resources sounds good, when you talk about my resources, *I* am the only arbiter of "intelligent use" that matters. Also, at the moment, it's difficult to recall any notable successes of centralized planning.
First place that comes to mind is Cleveland. It was in really bad shape, and it took a city-county-state partnership to improve it. I don't know how much it's improved, but it's better than it was.
One reason for the lack of examples is that there hasn't been much regional centralized planning in the United States. Europeans, because many of the countries are far more socialist, probably have more examples. We may not like those examples because of the system that created them.
Unlike you, I have a complete lack of faith in government planning when it comes to spending my tax dollars. But I agree with you that we should try some methods out - I just don't want everybody forced to do the exact same thing at the point of a gun (federal control or mandated "standards" that aren't).
I have a limited amount of faith. Parochialism is such a strong factor in a lot of decisions. It takes a really bad situation to force cooperation and overcome the parochial instinct (which in many cases is preferable anyway).
Aw, rats! I wanted to throw the Portland, Oregon Metro region in there somewhere to show the real evil that happens when New Urbanist bureaucrats run wild but I didn't see a good place to put it.
That's OK, I've heard of it.
Bottom line is: I think the main two things that have to happen are an improvement in the city tax base and a revitalization of the inner suburbs. But I have no really good ideas on how to do that. If I did, I might be able to get a much better job!