Governing Magazine/August 2008

CHRISTOPHER SWOPE'S URBAN NOTEBOOK

METRO MOJO

You have to give Bruce Katz some credit. A dozen years ago, Katz
founded the Metropolitan Policy program at the Brookings Institution.
Since then, there has been no more tireless advocate of the sensible
idea that cities and their suburbs succeed by working together rather
than at cross-purposes.
 Now, Katz is writing a new chapter in his gospel of regionalism. He's
heading an election-year push to get the federal government not only
to recognize that metropolitan areas are the engines of the national
economy, but also to make metros--not states, cities or counties--the
organizing principle of what he calls a "post-devolution federalism."
The message is getting through. In a recent speech to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, Barack Obama sounded pretty Katzy when he said
that "strong regions are essential for a strong America. That is the
new metropolitan reality and we need a new strategy that reflects it."
 These are hopeful words for any local leader who's given up on the
idea of a coherent federal urban policy. Yet it's difficult to see
where Katz's vision of a "metro policy for a metro nation" leads. It
has a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Let's say the feds got a full
injection of metro mojo tomorrow. Whom would the feds partner with?
Outside of Portland and Minneapolis, there are no real systems of
metro governance in place. Regional planning in America is spotty, and
reliant on the ad-hoc cooperation of enlightened mayors and business
leaders. The feds won't want to shape policy around--let alone dish
out money to--loose federations of varyingly competent civic clubs.
 Brookings'"Metropolicy" report, released in June, acknowledges this.
Metros would need "nudging," it says, in order to gain "the cohesion
needed to bridge the proliferation of city, suburban and state lines
that divide them." And how. But the truth is, the feds may need even
more nudging than the metros do. Congressional districts don't jibe
with metro geography any more than state or local boundaries do.
What's more, the federal bureaucracies that handle housing,
transportation, energy and the environment are hopelessly disconnected
from one another, despite the many ways their policies connect at the
metro level. "Frankly, it will take us five years to embed this," Katz
admits. "This is an intellectual shift."


PLANNING POWER

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has my vote for sound bite of the
year. In a speech on urban planning, Nutter warned developers that the
days of getting projects approved by cutting deals with the city
council and the zoning board are over. "Monty Hall," Nutter said, "has
left City Hall."
 There's a little more to it. Nutter wants to turn the Philadelphia
Planning Commission from something of an advisory board into a real
force for shaping the city. Over the years, he said, developers have
become deft at getting projects approved whether or not they conformed
to Philly's plans and aesthetic sensibilities.
 Nutter also wants to create a new design board to review the
"aesthetics, form and community context" of proposed projects, and
require the planning commission to consider the transportation
impacts.
 The one point Nutter didn't make in his speech--and didn't need to--
is that he controls the planning commission. Buttressing his nine
appointees with greater authority would give the mayor more power,
too. But if the end result is a handsomer, more vibrant city, he isn't
going to get too many complaints about that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2008, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form
without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited.
Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of
Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
http://www.governing.com