America should belong to her cities

I've certainly posted about it before, but I still doubt most people recognize how big a deal urbanization is, economically and politically, around the world but also in the U.S.

For instance, consider the complexity and difficulty of being the Governor of Nevada (pop. 3 million), Kansas (2.9 million), New Mexico (2 million), Nebraska (1.9 million), Idaho (1.7 million), North and South Dakota (1.7 million, combined), Wyoming (586,000), versus the job of being Mayor of New York City (8.6 million - 24 million in the metro area), Los Angeles (4 million - 18.7 million in the metro area), Chicago (2.7 million - 9.4 million in the metro area), Houston, (2.3 million - 6.5 million in the metro area), Philadelphia (1.6 million - 6 million metro), Phoenix (1.6 million - 4.2 million metro), San Antonio (1.5 million - 2.2 metro), or San Diego (1.4 million - 3.1 million metro).

So any one of these cities is larger than a handful of U.S. states.

The annual GDP of the New York and Los Angeles metro areas is about $1 trillion each! Compare that to VP Mike Pence's home state of Indiana, with a GDP in 2016 of $3.5 billion. There's really no comparison.

On top of that, consider that as many as 800 languages are spoken in New York City. Over 200 languages in Los Angeles.

Consider all the diverse people packed together in cities who have to find a way to get along with one another. Tolerance of multiculturalism in these cities isn't a liberal fetish -- it's a matter of survival, a fact of life.

Moreover, every major U.S. city votes Democratic in national elections. We don't have a Red/Blue state divide; we have an urban/rural divide. Even in the Red state of Texas, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in 2016. It wasn't even close.

The U.S. is becoming two different countries: urban and rural. This is not what our Founding Fathers or the Federalist Papers anticipated. Even in rural/Red states, we have urban centers who vote solidly Democratic. That matters in Presidential and governors races, but not in state or federal congressional races.

Hence, the people representing the fewest and most rural have outsized, un-representative influence over our politics at the state and federal level.

I predict that liberals and Democrats will become the new Federalists, preaching the government closest to the people should have the most power, because cities are where all the people are, and the most diverse, well-educated, innovative and liberal people are. Also the wealthiest. The math and demographics are unassailable. America belongs to her cities. Or ought to.

Isaac Asimov's 1964 predictions about 2014

Just for fun at the end of 2013, here is a look back at 1964, when one of my all-time favorite sci-fi writers Isaac Asimov speculated what the world would be like in 2014. He got some things right -- like solar power stations and online education -- and some wrong -- like moon colonies and moving sidewalks in cities.

Notably, he very nearly guessed the U.S. population -- 350 million -- and the Earth's population -- 6.5 billion instead of the actual 7.1 billion!

Visit to the World's Fair of 2014

By Isaac Asimov

August 16, 1964 | New York Times

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/lifetimes/asi-v-fair.html

Cities putting tax squeeze on nonprofits

Here, here! If these big, fat non-profits with their hefty overheads and bloated CEO salaries benefit from gov't services, then let them dish out like everybody else.


Cash-Strapped Cities Put The Squeeze On Nonprofits
By Tovia Smith
May 14, 2011 | NPR

URL: http://www.npr.org/136278740

Study: Fastest-growing cities also the poorest

The results of this study may seem counterintuitive, but not if you reject that article of faith that says people in a given place enjoy the benefits of economic growth in equal measure. In other words, what we see at the national level is also true on the local level: the trickle down of wealth is not inevitable, or even likely.

If this is true it's scary because our policy makers and businessmen really have no new ideas for sustainable economic growth in their communities.

Show Me the Evidence: Growth and Prosperity

By Eben Fodor

January 14, 2011 | The Daly News

Most cities in the U.S. have operated on the assumption that growth is inherently beneficial and that more and faster growth will benefit local residents economically. Local growth is often cited as the cure for urban ailments, especially the need for local jobs. But where is the empirical evidence that growth is providing these benefits?

I have completed a new study examining the relationship between growth and prosperity in U.S. metro areas. I found that those metro areas with the most growth fared the worst in terms of basic measures of economic well-being.

The study looked at the 100 largest U.S. metro areas (representing 66% of the total U.S. population) using the latest federal data for the 2000-09 period. The average annual population growth rate of each metro area was compared with unemployment rate, per capita income, and poverty rate using graphical and statistical analysis.

Some of the remarkable findings:

• Faster-growing areas did not have lower unemployment rates.
• Faster-growing areas tended to have lower per capita income than slower-growing areas. Per capita income in 2009 tended to decline almost $2,500 for each 1% increase in growth rate.
• Residents of faster-growing areas had greater income declines during the recession.
• Faster-growing areas tended to have higher poverty rates.

I also compared the 25 slowest-growing and 25 fastest-growing areas. The 25 slowest-growing metro areas outperformed the 25 fastest-growing in every category and averaged $8,455 more in per capita personal income in 2009. They also had lower unemployment and poverty rates.

Another remarkable finding is that stable metro areas (those with little or no growth) did relatively well. Statistically speaking, residents of an area with no growth over the 9-year period tended to have 43% more income gain than an area growing at 3% per year. Undoubtedly these findings offer a ray of hope that stable, sustainable communities may be perfectly viable — even prosperous — within our current economic system.

Click here to download the new study.

Eben Fodor is the founder of Fodor & Associates, a consulting firm that specializes in community planning, land use, and environmental sustainability. Fodor is also the author of Better, Not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community.