1. I published two articles this week. The first was a Governing Magazine piece about how Miami’s pro-development policies have delayed downtown gentrification. The second was an update, published by Forbes, on Philadelphia’s mass eminent domain scheme for a blighted neighborhood. That issue first became public for this audience when reader Adam Lang posted in the Market Urbanism Facebook group that he was one of many residents whose property would be seized. Emily followed with a description of the plan on this site, and my Forbes piece provides an update following the June 18th approval by city council. Far as I can tell, my article was the first mainstream national press coverage of the issue, and we can only hope from here that the floodgates open…
2. For America’s urban conservatives, it has been frustrating to see the indifference shown towards cities by the Republican Party. Even as the nation continues urbanizing, and election results are increasingly tied to the city vote, the GOP continues to identify with suburban and rural constituencies. This causes them to take positions which offend city voters, like opposing immigration reform and gay rights, while flat ignoring other principally urban issues like public transit and homelessness. And while there have been some conservative urban reforms, like charter schools and data-driven policing, there has not been a unified agenda. So it was exciting to see a recent article—reposted, naturally, on the MU Facebook group—advocating for this.
National Affairs, a quarterly journal that is associated with “reform conservatism,” published “An Urban Agenda for the Right.” The article was written by Michael Hendrix of the Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with NA editor Andrew Evans. While it did not list every possible reform, it mentioned many of the macro-level ones long discussed on this site. What I liked even more, though, was that it suggested a change in messaging, wherein the Democrat establishments that have long controlled cities are described as “closed,” while conservative reformers are portrayed as “open.” This, wrote the authors, would create a more accurate perception of modern U.S. cities.
As a result of decades of Democratic governance and misplaced priorities…American cities do not offer the opportunities for success and growth that they should, especially for those looking to climb the socio-economic ladder. In many cases, city governments are utterly dysfunctional. And the reason for this dysfunction is that our cities are too often closed—closed to businesses and closed to outsiders. For the middle class and those striving to make it up the ladder, the taxes, housing, and other costs leave cities simply too expensive to afford—especially with a family. Excessive regulation makes it difficult, if not downright impossible, to get the permits necessary to start a business. Cronyism and a lack of transparency make it difficult to know whether anyone is trying to fix the situation.
In response to this restrictiveness within cities, “conservatives should seek to make them open.”
What I found interesting about their wording was that it inverted how most Americans view the political parties. At the national level, Democrats are portrayed as the open and tolerant ones, and Republicans as the reactionary ones trying to uphold the status quo. These distinctions have been established largely because of the parties’ differing approach to social issues.
But this is hardly applicable to cities, where issues are rooted more in economics and quality-of-life. A large number of urbanites—whether they want to call themselves liberals, progressives, or Democrats—are in fact quite reactionary themselves, a point emphasized by the authors. Housing regulations have been used by the urban left to restrict new construction, as if city neighborhoods are gated country clubs that should never allow change or new people. The liberal business elite have fortified the business permitting process so much that, in many cities, it is nearly-impossible for competing entrepreneurs to enter basic professions like hair-styling. And to carve out a voting bloc, the left has defended unionized public monopolies that deliver services at far higher cost, and less efficiency, than is necessary.
To the authors, making cities more “open” would mean embracing economic and administrative liberalization. They call for housing deregulation, so that cities can accommodate growing populations; one-stop shops for business permitting; and civil service reform, so that bureaucracies are either held to better standards, or replaced through privatization. They also call for better online data, so that residents can easily view info on their cities’ spending and debt, and gain access to officials.
All these measures would, in fact, open up cities in the technical sense–by allowing in more people, and granting them more options once there. If such openness regarding cities was promoted more by Republicans, it might change the perception about which party best embodies this core urban value.