does this remind us of the present mission mode "city development platform"
The Urban Myth Of Urban Reform
By Prorev.com <http://prorev.com/> Editor Sam
Smith<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00175.htm#a#a>
As lower income ethnic residents are increasingly removed from America's
major cities we find this change cloaked in the language of reform. The
changes are described as "revitalization" or "economic development" when, in
fact, those being truly revitalized or developed typically constitute a
small percentage of the population. For example, a study by David
Schwartzman found that in 1998 those earning over $100,000 paid 66% of all
US income taxes paid in Washington DC. Those earning over $200,000 paid 50%
of all US income taxes. It has clearly only gotten more so since.
In 1998, those earning over $200,000 and paying 50% of all US income taxes
represented only 2.6% of DC's population. Those earning over $100,000
represented 8.1%.
How many people are we talking about? Less than 22,000 taxpayers, 7,000 of
whom earned over $200,000.
At the other end are 209,000 taxpayers who earned less than $50,000.
Together, they provided only 16% of the city's federal income tax.
One would assume that a city that is truly being revitalized would find more
and better jobs for its residents. In fact, jobs for DC residents have
declined fifteen percent over the past 20 years.
One would also assume that a city that is truly being revitalized would find
its population growing. But this isn't the case for those urban areas that
make the most noise about economic development.
A recent study reported in USA Today found that "more cities with
100,000-plus residents shrank from 2004 to 2005 than in the previous year:
97 vs. 82. Costly coastal cities are among the new losers: New York, San
Diego and Long Beach" along with Washington which once was the tenth largest
city in the country and may be soon smaller than Las Vegas. Only 20 cities
went from loss to gain, including Indianapolis, Wichita, Jersey City and Fort
Wayne - not ones that you generally associate with the much ballyhooed
"creative class."
As happened in the previous century, urban elites are simply reclaiming
cities from ethnic groups - while calling themselves reformers and
revitalizers. In fact, they are just taking power. In Creating Portland, a
book about Portland, Maine, Joseph Conforti describes how it happened there
in the last century:
"Portland's increasing ethnic diversity played a role in the adoption of a
city manager form of government in 1923, a Progressive-Era reform that
altered politics in many American urban communities. As cities expanded
social services and assumed more debt, city manager government offered the
promise of greater efficiency and economy in the conduct of municipal
affairs. Business principles would replace partisan politics as the
mainspring of city government. Such a prospect appealed to many citizens in
cities seemingly caught in a spoils system of partisan ward politics that
divided a predominantly native-born Republican constituency from a rising
Democratic Party increasingly ethnic and immigrant in its makeup. . .
"Republicans long dominated city government, but Democrats controlled ethnic
wards on the peninsula. After voters narrowly rejected a new city manager
charter in 1921, reformers mounted a second, acrimonious campaign two years
later. . . Fissures emerged between the working-class wards of Munjoy Hill
and the upper-middle-class neighborhoods of the West End; between the
peninsula and Deering; and between Catholic-Jewish voters and native-born
citizens. A prominent Jewish lawyer ridiculed city manager reform in 1923,
claiming that 'If this plan goes through, every man of Irish descent may as
well pack up his trunk and leave the city as far as representation on the
city government is concerned.' A revitalized Ku Klux Klan organized rallies
in support of the new charter and encouraged voters to purge municipal
government of Catholics and Jews."
It is assumed by many - particularly in academia and the media - that we are
well rid of old-style ethnic urban government and its corruption, replacing
it with such modern tools as city managers and urban planning. The truth is
that in the old days one could buy favors, but today you can buy the whole
city for the benefit of a few developers and other big businesses. The truth
is that many of these corrupt ethnic politicians did more to help the
underclasses of their cities than the reformers who replaced them.
This is an issue I addressed some years back:
In 1816, Columbus, Ohio, had one city councilmember for every hundred
residents. By 1840 there was one for every thousand residents. By 1872 the
figure had dwindled to one to every five thousand. By 1974, there was one
councilmember for every 55,000 people.
The first US congressional districts contained less than 40,000 people; my
current city councilmember represents about twice that many. Today the
average US representative works for roughly 600,000 citizens. This is double
the number for legislatures in Brazil and Japan, and more than five times as
many as in Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, Italy, and West Germany.
It isn't just a matter of numbers. Back in the early days of television and
the late days of the Daley era in Chicago, Jake Arvey was an important man
in national Democratic politics. At Democratic conventions, Walter Cronkite
and David Brinkley would ponder what Arvey was going to do; presidential
candidates would seek his blessing.
Yet Arvey's power base was not a national organization nor telegenic
charisma, but rather the 24th Ward of Chicago, from which he helped to run
the city's Democratic machine.
Another Chicago politician described it this way: "Not a sparrow falls
inside the boundaries of the 24th Ward without Arvey knowing of it. And even
before it hits the ground there's already a personal history at
headquarters, complete to the moment of its tumble." There was plenty wrong
with the Daley machine and others like it. One job seeker was asked at a
ward headquarters who had sent him. "Nobody," he admitted. He was told, "We
don't want nobody nobody sent."
Among those whom nobody sent were women and minorities. The old machines
were prejudiced, feudal and corrupt.
And so we eventually did away with them.
But reform breeds its own hubris and so few noticed that as we destroyed the
evils of machine politics we also were breaking the links between politics
and the individual, politics and community, politics and social life. We
were beginning to segregate politics from ourselves.
George Washington Plunkitt would not have been surprised. Plunkitt was a
leader of Tammany Hall and was, by the standards of our times and his,
undeniably corrupt. As his Boswell, newspaperman William Riordon, noted: "In
1870 through a strange combination of circumstances, he held the places of
Assemblyman, Alderman, Police Magistrate and County Supervisor and drew
three salaries at once -- a record unexampled in New York politics.". Facing
three bidders at a city auction of 250,000 paving stones, he offered each
10,000 to 20,000 stones free and having thus dispensed with competition
bought the whole lot for $2.50.
Tammany Hall was founded in 1854; its golden age lasted until the three-term
LaGuardia administration began in 1934. For only ten intervening years was
Tammany out of office. We got rid of people like Plunkitt and machines like
Tammany because we came to believe in something called good government. But
in throwing out the machines we also tossed out a philosophy and an art of
politics. It is as though, in seeking to destroy the Mafia, we had
determined that family values and personal loyalty were somehow by
association criminal as well.
Plunkitt was not only corrupt but a hardworking, perceptive and appealing
politician who took care of his constituents, qualities one rarely find in
any plurality of combinations in politics these days. Even our corrupt
politicians aren't what they used to be. Corruption once involved a complex,
if feudal, set of quid pro quos; today our corrupt politicians rarely even
tithe to the people. . .
Tammany Hall, at its height, had 32,000 committeemen and was forced to use
Madison Square Garden for its meetings. In contrast, when the Democratic
National Committee decided to send a mailing to all its workers a few years
ago, it found that no one had kept a list. The party had come to care only
about its donors. . .
Wrote a newspaperman of the time, William Riordon:
The Tammany district leader reaches out into the homes of his district,
keeps watch not only on the men, but also on the women and children, knows
their needs, their likes and dislikes, their troubles and their hopes, and
places himself in a position to use his knowledge for the benefit of his
organization and himself. Is it any wonder that scandals do not permanently
disable Tammany and that it speedily recovers from what seems to be crushing
defeat?
Such practices contrast markedly with the impersonal, abstract style of
politics to which we have become accustomed. It was, to be sure, a mixture
of the good and the bad, but you at least knew whom to thank and whom to
blame. . .
It has been a favorite myth of political scientists and historians is that
corrupt ethnic machines of the Tweed or Curley variety were replaced by
progress. A similar myth surrounds today's urban gentrification. In fact,
much of the change merely transferred the power to corrupt from one ethnic
group or economic class to another. The term corruption, of course, is no
longer used, but rather revitalization. And it is happening all over urban
America.
The Urban Myth Of Urban Reform
By Prorev.com <http://prorev.com/> Editor Sam
Smith<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00175.htm#a#a>
As lower income ethnic residents are increasingly removed from America's
major cities we find this change cloaked in the language of reform. The
changes are described as "revitalization" or "economic development" when, in
fact, those being truly revitalized or developed typically constitute a
small percentage of the population. For example, a study by David
Schwartzman found that in 1998 those earning over $100,000 paid 66% of all
US income taxes paid in Washington DC. Those earning over $200,000 paid 50%
of all US income taxes. It has clearly only gotten more so since.
In 1998, those earning over $200,000 and paying 50% of all US income taxes
represented only 2.6% of DC's population. Those earning over $100,000
represented 8.1%.
How many people are we talking about? Less than 22,000 taxpayers, 7,000 of
whom earned over $200,000.
At the other end are 209,000 taxpayers who earned less than $50,000.
Together, they provided only 16% of the city's federal income tax.
One would assume that a city that is truly being revitalized would find more
and better jobs for its residents. In fact, jobs for DC residents have
declined fifteen percent over the past 20 years.
One would also assume that a city that is truly being revitalized would find
its population growing. But this isn't the case for those urban areas that
make the most noise about economic development.
A recent study reported in USA Today found that "more cities with
100,000-plus residents shrank from 2004 to 2005 than in the previous year:
97 vs. 82. Costly coastal cities are among the new losers: New York, San
Diego and Long Beach" along with Washington which once was the tenth largest
city in the country and may be soon smaller than Las Vegas. Only 20 cities
went from loss to gain, including Indianapolis, Wichita, Jersey City and Fort
Wayne - not ones that you generally associate with the much ballyhooed
"creative class."
As happened in the previous century, urban elites are simply reclaiming
cities from ethnic groups - while calling themselves reformers and
revitalizers. In fact, they are just taking power. In Creating Portland, a
book about Portland, Maine, Joseph Conforti describes how it happened there
in the last century:
"Portland's increasing ethnic diversity played a role in the adoption of a
city manager form of government in 1923, a Progressive-Era reform that
altered politics in many American urban communities. As cities expanded
social services and assumed more debt, city manager government offered the
promise of greater efficiency and economy in the conduct of municipal
affairs. Business principles would replace partisan politics as the
mainspring of city government. Such a prospect appealed to many citizens in
cities seemingly caught in a spoils system of partisan ward politics that
divided a predominantly native-born Republican constituency from a rising
Democratic Party increasingly ethnic and immigrant in its makeup. . .
"Republicans long dominated city government, but Democrats controlled ethnic
wards on the peninsula. After voters narrowly rejected a new city manager
charter in 1921, reformers mounted a second, acrimonious campaign two years
later. . . Fissures emerged between the working-class wards of Munjoy Hill
and the upper-middle-class neighborhoods of the West End; between the
peninsula and Deering; and between Catholic-Jewish voters and native-born
citizens. A prominent Jewish lawyer ridiculed city manager reform in 1923,
claiming that 'If this plan goes through, every man of Irish descent may as
well pack up his trunk and leave the city as far as representation on the
city government is concerned.' A revitalized Ku Klux Klan organized rallies
in support of the new charter and encouraged voters to purge municipal
government of Catholics and Jews."
It is assumed by many - particularly in academia and the media - that we are
well rid of old-style ethnic urban government and its corruption, replacing
it with such modern tools as city managers and urban planning. The truth is
that in the old days one could buy favors, but today you can buy the whole
city for the benefit of a few developers and other big businesses. The truth
is that many of these corrupt ethnic politicians did more to help the
underclasses of their cities than the reformers who replaced them.
This is an issue I addressed some years back:
In 1816, Columbus, Ohio, had one city councilmember for every hundred
residents. By 1840 there was one for every thousand residents. By 1872 the
figure had dwindled to one to every five thousand. By 1974, there was one
councilmember for every 55,000 people.
The first US congressional districts contained less than 40,000 people; my
current city councilmember represents about twice that many. Today the
average US representative works for roughly 600,000 citizens. This is double
the number for legislatures in Brazil and Japan, and more than five times as
many as in Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, Italy, and West Germany.
It isn't just a matter of numbers. Back in the early days of television and
the late days of the Daley era in Chicago, Jake Arvey was an important man
in national Democratic politics. At Democratic conventions, Walter Cronkite
and David Brinkley would ponder what Arvey was going to do; presidential
candidates would seek his blessing.
Yet Arvey's power base was not a national organization nor telegenic
charisma, but rather the 24th Ward of Chicago, from which he helped to run
the city's Democratic machine.
Another Chicago politician described it this way: "Not a sparrow falls
inside the boundaries of the 24th Ward without Arvey knowing of it. And even
before it hits the ground there's already a personal history at
headquarters, complete to the moment of its tumble." There was plenty wrong
with the Daley machine and others like it. One job seeker was asked at a
ward headquarters who had sent him. "Nobody," he admitted. He was told, "We
don't want nobody nobody sent."
Among those whom nobody sent were women and minorities. The old machines
were prejudiced, feudal and corrupt.
And so we eventually did away with them.
But reform breeds its own hubris and so few noticed that as we destroyed the
evils of machine politics we also were breaking the links between politics
and the individual, politics and community, politics and social life. We
were beginning to segregate politics from ourselves.
George Washington Plunkitt would not have been surprised. Plunkitt was a
leader of Tammany Hall and was, by the standards of our times and his,
undeniably corrupt. As his Boswell, newspaperman William Riordon, noted: "In
1870 through a strange combination of circumstances, he held the places of
Assemblyman, Alderman, Police Magistrate and County Supervisor and drew
three salaries at once -- a record unexampled in New York politics.". Facing
three bidders at a city auction of 250,000 paving stones, he offered each
10,000 to 20,000 stones free and having thus dispensed with competition
bought the whole lot for $2.50.
Tammany Hall was founded in 1854; its golden age lasted until the three-term
LaGuardia administration began in 1934. For only ten intervening years was
Tammany out of office. We got rid of people like Plunkitt and machines like
Tammany because we came to believe in something called good government. But
in throwing out the machines we also tossed out a philosophy and an art of
politics. It is as though, in seeking to destroy the Mafia, we had
determined that family values and personal loyalty were somehow by
association criminal as well.
Plunkitt was not only corrupt but a hardworking, perceptive and appealing
politician who took care of his constituents, qualities one rarely find in
any plurality of combinations in politics these days. Even our corrupt
politicians aren't what they used to be. Corruption once involved a complex,
if feudal, set of quid pro quos; today our corrupt politicians rarely even
tithe to the people. . .
Tammany Hall, at its height, had 32,000 committeemen and was forced to use
Madison Square Garden for its meetings. In contrast, when the Democratic
National Committee decided to send a mailing to all its workers a few years
ago, it found that no one had kept a list. The party had come to care only
about its donors. . .
Wrote a newspaperman of the time, William Riordon:
The Tammany district leader reaches out into the homes of his district,
keeps watch not only on the men, but also on the women and children, knows
their needs, their likes and dislikes, their troubles and their hopes, and
places himself in a position to use his knowledge for the benefit of his
organization and himself. Is it any wonder that scandals do not permanently
disable Tammany and that it speedily recovers from what seems to be crushing
defeat?
Such practices contrast markedly with the impersonal, abstract style of
politics to which we have become accustomed. It was, to be sure, a mixture
of the good and the bad, but you at least knew whom to thank and whom to
blame. . .
It has been a favorite myth of political scientists and historians is that
corrupt ethnic machines of the Tweed or Curley variety were replaced by
progress. A similar myth surrounds today's urban gentrification. In fact,
much of the change merely transferred the power to corrupt from one ethnic
group or economic class to another. The term corruption, of course, is no
longer used, but rather revitalization. And it is happening all over urban
America.