It's good to (finally) see the Journal Sentinel clutching onto Richard Longworth's promotion of a more regional governance between Milwaukee and Chicago, and amongst other regional cities. But how long will this latest fascination last? Lip service (or should I say ink) to regionalism has flippantly been given by the Journal in the past.
Sadly, such communal (dare I say socialist) conceptions of government - cooperation for the benefit of the whole - whereby decisions are made with a broader concern have been brushed aside for decades by political and business leaders alike.
In 1992, looking at the potential positive regional impact from light rail transit (LRT), Marc Levine, professor of history and urban studies at UWM, found, "The UWMCED study concludes that, although the economic benefits of LRT should not be oversold and will require supportive public policies to be fully realized, a light rail system could contribute significantly to economic development in the city of Milwaukee and the entire region."
Levine, in reporting on Milwaukee's inner city in 2006, stated, "As a consequence of these trends, income inequality in metropolitan Milwaukee deepened last year, as the inner city fell further behind other areas of the region... These are massive income gaps that have widened considerably since 1990 and signify deep economic polarization in the region. “Regionalism” has become the new buzzword among city and corporate leaders, but, so far at least, there has been little indication that these leaders are prepared to implement the kinds of regional equity policies –in transportation, tax-base sharing, or growth management—that other communities have used to attack regional economic disparities."
In 2008, Levine proposed, "The region’s corporate leaders, represented by the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and the Greater Milwaukee Committee, supposedly support regional rail transit. If that’s true, they should make it the centerpiece of the Milwaukee 7 initiative, turning it into a more muscular regionalism that could underpin an economic revitalization of the city and region."
And, other voices have been calling for more regional approaches to governance for decades. Suddenly the Journal Sentinel is on board. Better late than never, I guess.
The problem is that by opposing rail (and other more regional - cooperative - policies), the Journal Sentinel has stymied progress on the very issue they suddenly see as a no-brainer. Rail would-have-been an catalyst for infrastructure, jobs, and an improved regional linkage. It would have been one of the biggest investments in the region in a generation or more.
The Journal Sentinel goose-stepped right along with Scott Walker and his plan to refuse funding for rail expansion in the region.
Milquetoast coverage and the occasional blip regarding a "regional" solution to the issue-of-the-moment is not full-throated support for regionalism nor meaningfully helpful in bringing regional governance, as a topic, to the forefront.
It's hard to claim to be for the region when one supports policies that prevent the region from more efficiently linking together and growing.
Showing posts with label regionalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regionalism. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Friday, May 22, 2009
Data Doldrums
John G. Craig Jr., president of Pittsburgh Regional Indicators, penned a May 16, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article about many economic lessons Milwaukee could learn from Pittsburgh. All-in-all this was an admirable and informative piece. But to what ends?
The major misleading perspective of the article is its "regional" usage. Most cities and their suburbs do not have concerted efforts to attract business and maintain services - regional governance. In fact, they are usually in direct competition. [Think about the millions the City of Milwaukee spent to move Manpower from Glendale to within the City limits. Millions for no economic growth whatsoever. Merely to get Manpower on the Milwaukee tax roll. A realignment, not growth.]
So, when recommending responses to certain "regional" economic problems, who are supposed to enact these solutions? These types of comparisons are fine for Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville which have regional governing bodies in place. But comparisons and recommendations beyond cities and suburbs with regional structures can be misleading. Not to mention factors such as a city's age, annexation history, etc. And, to surmise from regional data that all the underlying components of that data (city, suburb) are on the right track could be mistaken.
Pittsburgh's central city has lost 45 percent of its population since the 1970s, compared to Milwaukee losing only 20 percent. The number of employed residents in the City of Pittsburgh has declined by over 30 percent since the 1970s, 23 percent for the City of Milwaukee. And, the City of Pittsburgh population is 311,000; while the City of Milwaukee has 602,000 people. Employment growth over the last decade was -4.5 percent for the City of Pittsburgh, and -9.3 percent for the City of Milwaukee. The City of Milwaukee employs about 240,000 compared to Pittsburgh's 140,000.
CityMayors just released a report showing that Pittsburgh is the most (short-term particle) polluted city. According to Men's Health, Milwaukee is the 11th fittest city, Pittsburgh ranks 25th. Milwaukee was also recently named to the Global Compact City program (water technology) of the United Nations. The indicators can go both ways depending on what we’re looking at, and where (city v. suburb).
There are many best practices that any city and suburb could follow and would most likely reap some benefits. But, for the most part, our economic development paradigm today is a zero-sum game. Benefits for one city, suburb, or region are the losses of another. This is the heart of the matter we must address if we want healthy growth for our cities, suburbs, and regions.
For Further Reading:
Corporate Blackmail
Doing Development Right
Legalized Bribery
Nudging Away Nonsense
The major misleading perspective of the article is its "regional" usage. Most cities and their suburbs do not have concerted efforts to attract business and maintain services - regional governance. In fact, they are usually in direct competition. [Think about the millions the City of Milwaukee spent to move Manpower from Glendale to within the City limits. Millions for no economic growth whatsoever. Merely to get Manpower on the Milwaukee tax roll. A realignment, not growth.]
So, when recommending responses to certain "regional" economic problems, who are supposed to enact these solutions? These types of comparisons are fine for Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville which have regional governing bodies in place. But comparisons and recommendations beyond cities and suburbs with regional structures can be misleading. Not to mention factors such as a city's age, annexation history, etc. And, to surmise from regional data that all the underlying components of that data (city, suburb) are on the right track could be mistaken.
Pittsburgh's central city has lost 45 percent of its population since the 1970s, compared to Milwaukee losing only 20 percent. The number of employed residents in the City of Pittsburgh has declined by over 30 percent since the 1970s, 23 percent for the City of Milwaukee. And, the City of Pittsburgh population is 311,000; while the City of Milwaukee has 602,000 people. Employment growth over the last decade was -4.5 percent for the City of Pittsburgh, and -9.3 percent for the City of Milwaukee. The City of Milwaukee employs about 240,000 compared to Pittsburgh's 140,000.
CityMayors just released a report showing that Pittsburgh is the most (short-term particle) polluted city. According to Men's Health, Milwaukee is the 11th fittest city, Pittsburgh ranks 25th. Milwaukee was also recently named to the Global Compact City program (water technology) of the United Nations. The indicators can go both ways depending on what we’re looking at, and where (city v. suburb).
There are many best practices that any city and suburb could follow and would most likely reap some benefits. But, for the most part, our economic development paradigm today is a zero-sum game. Benefits for one city, suburb, or region are the losses of another. This is the heart of the matter we must address if we want healthy growth for our cities, suburbs, and regions.
For Further Reading:
Corporate Blackmail
Doing Development Right
Legalized Bribery
Nudging Away Nonsense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)