I like #3 the best and it's where I've turned my attention. The other thing I will say is that more and more I find myself realizing that liberal policies, unfortunately create the least liberal outcomes. This is manifested mostly in the cost of living and specifically the cost of housing. To move forward, we might want to acknowledge the staggering reality that is the day-to-day economics of the poorest Americans. Building an America where they can thrive, in my mind, is the essence of the American spirit.
Most of this feels like collective action problems. Everyone in these systems probably agrees with these precepts, but when, for someone at an agency reads it, they all read it as, "yes, there are too many agencies, they should be rolled into mine!"
To fix this, we'd need:
1. a Trump-like figure*, who's happy to piss off lots of people in their coalition. Sorry unions, f off. Sorry municipal agency #104, you're gone and a lof of you are fired. Sorry non-profits and advocates, we've listened but are rejecting your concerns. F-off. Sorry courts, you're suing too much and we're going to (legally, but w/ extreme hardball) neuter you.
2. Liberal citizens of these cities to not clutch their pearls when that Trump-like figure tries to make this happen -- the second it does, everyone in these ciites be up in arms about the poor union workers, civil servants, non-profits workers, etc. on the losing end.
It's much easier to go along to get along, results be damned.
*Trump is awful, but we need someone like him in urban leadership, but with better politics and without the self-dealing. Dems either go-along-to-get-along, or are firebrands but for the "downtrodden" (unions, civilian voices etc.) - neither of those modes are going to fix the problems listed in this post.
Great list, but missing one: every one of these layers and obstacles to progress is an opportunity for graft and corruption, both legal (groups demanding payoffs to get out of the way) and illegal (straight up bribes). This increases costs and further tilts the playing field in favor of the wealthy and connected. As the late great PJ O’Rourke said, when legislatures control buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and sold are the legislators.
You've already lost by calling it a "Democratic" urban agenda. The parties are in motion, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree or disagree with Trump or any other Republican. Look at what Sean O'Brien did, he stayed neutral and demanded support for a labor agenda from both sides. He spoke in a prime spot at the Republican convention, endorsed no one, and now has his preferred pick for Labor Secretary, who backs what would be the biggest piece of pro-labor legislation in a generation.
Muslims and Arabs in Michigan withheld their votes, you can be certain that the next Democratic nominee will have a very different persective on Israel-Palestine.
If you're already pre-committed to the Democrats, you have no leverage and you will be ignored the same as every other similar attempt has been ignored for years.
State the principles that make for a thriving city and invite all political parties and candidates to compete on that basis.
I like #3 the best and it's where I've turned my attention. The other thing I will say is that more and more I find myself realizing that liberal policies, unfortunately create the least liberal outcomes. This is manifested mostly in the cost of living and specifically the cost of housing. To move forward, we might want to acknowledge the staggering reality that is the day-to-day economics of the poorest Americans. Building an America where they can thrive, in my mind, is the essence of the American spirit.
Most of this feels like collective action problems. Everyone in these systems probably agrees with these precepts, but when, for someone at an agency reads it, they all read it as, "yes, there are too many agencies, they should be rolled into mine!"
To fix this, we'd need:
1. a Trump-like figure*, who's happy to piss off lots of people in their coalition. Sorry unions, f off. Sorry municipal agency #104, you're gone and a lof of you are fired. Sorry non-profits and advocates, we've listened but are rejecting your concerns. F-off. Sorry courts, you're suing too much and we're going to (legally, but w/ extreme hardball) neuter you.
2. Liberal citizens of these cities to not clutch their pearls when that Trump-like figure tries to make this happen -- the second it does, everyone in these ciites be up in arms about the poor union workers, civil servants, non-profits workers, etc. on the losing end.
It's much easier to go along to get along, results be damned.
*Trump is awful, but we need someone like him in urban leadership, but with better politics and without the self-dealing. Dems either go-along-to-get-along, or are firebrands but for the "downtrodden" (unions, civilian voices etc.) - neither of those modes are going to fix the problems listed in this post.
Great read, I just found you through Micah Erfan. Welcome to Substack!
Great piece! And welcome to Substack - always good to see great writers here!
Great list, but missing one: every one of these layers and obstacles to progress is an opportunity for graft and corruption, both legal (groups demanding payoffs to get out of the way) and illegal (straight up bribes). This increases costs and further tilts the playing field in favor of the wealthy and connected. As the late great PJ O’Rourke said, when legislatures control buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and sold are the legislators.
"
Take Chicago’s Cook County. It’s home to 134 municipalities, each with its own transportation plan. Regional governance structures....
"
Cook County is that regional govt entity that covers 134.
Census designated boundaries aren’t designed as interconnected regional governance. Is there something you’re thinking about specifically?
You've already lost by calling it a "Democratic" urban agenda. The parties are in motion, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree or disagree with Trump or any other Republican. Look at what Sean O'Brien did, he stayed neutral and demanded support for a labor agenda from both sides. He spoke in a prime spot at the Republican convention, endorsed no one, and now has his preferred pick for Labor Secretary, who backs what would be the biggest piece of pro-labor legislation in a generation.
Muslims and Arabs in Michigan withheld their votes, you can be certain that the next Democratic nominee will have a very different persective on Israel-Palestine.
If you're already pre-committed to the Democrats, you have no leverage and you will be ignored the same as every other similar attempt has been ignored for years.
State the principles that make for a thriving city and invite all political parties and candidates to compete on that basis.
Great post! Check out the recent Dan Savage interview on Volts podcast. This brainstorming fits right in with his Blue Archipelago idea.
Finally, someone said it!