New Geography

Category: Economics

  • A Bailout For Yuppies

    The recent call by the porn industry – a big employer where I live, in the San Fernando Valley – for a $5 billion bailout elicited outrage in other places. Around here, it sparked something more akin to nervous laughter. Yet lending a helping hand to Pornopolis is far from the most absurd approach being discussed to stimulate the economy.

    Some influentials close to the administration may even find the porn industry a bit too tangible for their tastes. After all, the pornsters make a product that sells internationally, appeals to the masses and employs a lot of people whose skills are, well, more practical than ideational.

    As such, they may not even qualify for what is best described as a yuppie bailout, poised to extend the welfare state to the highly educated professional set. After all, George Bush’s bailout of Wall Street has already set a precedent, using public money to secure the bonuses and nest eggs of some of the nation’s most elite professionals. Call it the Paulson principle: In bad times, steer help to those least in need.

    A yuppie stimulus differs from the more traditional approach, which aims to get the front-line, blue-collar types back to work. Instead, it would channel public funds away from those grouchy construction workers – some 30% of whom may soon be out of work – to better heeled, and, in their minds, more deserving “creative” professionals. After all, what stake do the netroots have in making things better for Joe the Plumber?

    In contrast, the yuppie bailout focuses on a sure-fire Democratic constituency, the well-educated urban professional. One advocate of such an approach, pundit Richard Florida, has urged President-elect Barack Obama to eschew crude investments in traditional production and a renewed housing market in favor of goodies directed to what he calls “the creative industry.”

    Florida sees any focus on restoring manufacturing and housing as a misguided rescue of the “old industrial economy,” in which Americans actually made things and other Americans consumed them. Instead, he suggests, “the first step must be to reduce demand for the core products and lifestyle of the old order.”

    So let’s stop worrying about what happens to Detroit, or the crisis in the housing market. In Florida’s view, cars, of course, are demonized as woefully bad for environmental reasons and not particularly friendly to the preferred dense urbanity so attractive to advocates of “hip cool” cities.

    Florida even recommends shifting away from the single-family home, which is also, all too often, in the ‘burbs. Instead, we should develop what he calls “flexible rental housing,” so people can move every time they get new jobs. I think that is what they used to do in Chairman Mao’s China, too, albeit without the granite countertops and a Starbucks around the corner.

    In a yuppie bailout, what spending takes priority? More jobs for academics and educators. Florida suggests we invest in “individually tailored learning.” We assume this means neither home-schooling nor basic skills training but something more like painting and acting classes for tots and advanced “creative” navel-gazing for tweens and adolescents. And, of course, lots and lots of new jobs for well-paid, unionized teachers.

    These ideas should not be dismissed out of hand as the impractical meanderings of a lone scholar. In fact, Florida’s views are taken very seriously among influential Obama supporters at companies like Google as well as by politicos such as Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is widely identified as a key Obama counselor on economic issues.

    Nor is Florida alone in his views. Bigger feet among the purveyors of conventional wisdom, like The New York Times‘ Thomas Friedman, also think the stimulus should steer more resources into the public pedagogy. Friedman even recently suggested teachers be exempted from paying federal taxes.

    And it’s not just teachers who would benefit from a yuppie bailout. The economic stimulus, Friedman says, should also focus more on high-tech companies like Google, Apple, Intel and Microsoft, all of which enjoy extraordinary valuations. This reaffirms the Paulson principle with a politically correct spin.

    Politically, a yuppie bailout would certainly appeal to powerful Democratic constituencies, not just the teachers’ unions. Select high-tech companies and venture capitalists can count on new subsidies and tax breaks. Greens and “smart growth” advocates will celebrate if money is diverted from hard infrastructure – such as improved roads, bridges, ports and transmission lines – which they insist would create enough carbon to heat the planet like a toaster.

    This “yuppie first” approach certainly would appeal to many mayors, some of whom are already adherents to the Floridian ideology. They may be further encouraged by a new report by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve called “City Beautiful,” which suggests cities should not promote growth through traditional infrastructure but instead invest in frilly amenities. As a Boston Globe article on the report summarized cheerfully: “Make it fun.”

    Here’s another hint of what might be coming in a yuppie bailout. Providence, R.I., located in the state with the nation’s second-highest unemployment rate, wants to sink money into a polar bear exhibit at its zoo – perhaps so we can see them before they become extinct or go on Al Gore’s payroll – as well as make improvements to a soccer field. Miami envisions spending on a giant water slide, new BMX and dirt bike trails at a local park and, of great national import, a new Miami Rowing Club building.

    Even the once-booming but now-hurting ultimate “fun city,” Las Vegas, wants in on the act. Mayor Oscar Goodman is asking the feds to kick in big time for its new Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement. That’s right, taxpayers can participate in building a monument to Bugsy Segal. And with Nevada’s own Harry Reid running the Senate, the project seems well-positioned to get the “respect” it deserves.

    If Goodman, who used to defend mobsters as a criminal defense lawyer, has his way, it could spark a feeding frenzy for every under-funded tourist trap from Cleveland to Cucamonga. Pork used to mean roads, bridges and ports that, at least in theory, made the economy more productive while providing well-paid work for blue-collar workers. Soon these dollars may instead go toward yacht clubs, art galleries, museums and “creativity” training for toddlers.

    A yuppie bailout is likely to hold more money for Boston, San Francisco and other havens of the perennially hip – all of them Democratic bastions. There’s also likely to be less funding for the grotty suburban towns, industrial backwaters and Appalachian hamlets, all of which don’t usually appeal to the artistic set.

    To an old-fashioned Democrat, this all seems to miss the point. Shouldn’t we be stimulating the places already suffering the most from high unemployment, foreclosures and spreading impoverishment? Where do Toledo, Cleveland or Modesto fit in to the yuppie bailout? As Pittsburgh-based blogger Jim Russell says: “Most of the population will continue to live in ‘Forgottenville.’ Should we just forget about them?”

    In spite of all this, the mounting pressure for a yuppie bailout sadly reveals how the supposed party of the people is being transformed into just a second party of privilege. We should desperately try to create new productive capacity and better-paying jobs, especially for the denizens of Forgottenville. It certainly makes more sense than pouring taxpayer funds into new clubhouses, water slides or even better-financed pornographic movies – however much the latter may help property values in my neighborhood.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

  • Advancing Economies by the Power of Industry

    For the last quarter century there has been a growing tendency among policy makers and corporate executives to downplay, and even ignore, the primary importance of the ‘real,’ or tangible, economy. It is now widely believed that the primary engine of wealth creation is the manipulation of symbols and images — ‘the new economy’ of the ‘information/creative age’ — as opposed to the manufacture of tangible products and services.

    This paper challenges these assumptions. Our research in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America suggests that rapid economic and income growth tends to occur most steadily in areas where tangible production has been readily encouraged. Although the successful strategy varies by region and country, the basic fundamentals to propel growth lie in policies that stress the construction of essential physical infrastructure, investments in basic and skill-oriented education, and favorable tax and regulatory policies.

    Increasingly, this also includes the building of what we refer to as ‘infrasystems’, also called regional innovation systems. These are policies that encourage innovation and cross-firm transactions through the development of interlocking regional institutions, such as schools and governments that work closely with local industries. These infrasystems investments represent the cutting edge of progressive economic policies that encourage wealth creation and broad based opportunities for a wide variety of citizens.

    We believe that this ‘back to basics’ approach is particularly applicable during the current global financial crisis. Attempts to ‘create’ wealth through financial manipulation and the hyping of cultural attributes have done very little except create short-lived economic bubbles on the local, national and, most ominously, global levels. The time for a reassessment, and a return to the basic principles of wealth creation, clearly has arrived.

    See attached .pdf file for full report.

    Primary Authors: Joel Kotkin, Delore Zimmerman
    Research Team: Mark Schill, Matthew Leiphon, Andy Sywak
    Editor: Zina Klapper

  • The Mobility Paradox: Investing in Human Capital Fuels Migration

    China has an interesting urban development strategy. The government bypasses those areas that it considers backward and plagued by poverty and entrenched political corruption. Instead, the investment goes into those areas it presumes to be new boomtowns.

    Now imagine if that Darwinian approach was used here in the United States. A report (“City Beautiful”) authored by two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia advocates pushing federal infrastructure dollars – which could soon be flowing in the hundreds of billions – not towards our tired, hard-pressed urban areas but those that have experienced the greatest extent of gentrification.

    If you don’t want to slog through the published paper, then you can read about the controversial findings in a recent Boston Globe article. The journalist, not surprisingly, sensationalizes the conclusions and the choice quotes do a great job of provocation: “‘If you have sun and a beautiful beach and 300-year-old buildings, it’s no wonder that you’re going to attract people,’ said [co-author Albert Saiz]. ‘But that’s no use for Detroit or Syracuse.’”

    The author of the Globe piece goes on to question the coming urban bailouts: “Why send another federal dollar to bolster manufacturing in Akron when it could support a golf course in sunny Phoenix?”

    I get the sense that the economists in question aren’t making such a stark distinction. But I can understand why the press would go down that road. I’ve read the research and there are concerns about the wisdom of investing in cities that currently don’t attract tourists or Richard Florida’s elite Creative Class.

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia report attempts to reconfigure the understanding of urban geography. People are congregating in urban centers for a new purpose: leisure. The old school of thinking identified the central business district (CBD) as the economic heart of the metropolis. Higher densities were the result of a more efficient way of doing certain types of work (e.g. financial, insurance and real estate).

    The new school sees the city as a special playground and the study tries to capture this effect by looking at tourist Meccas. In short, jobs are following talent to pleasant places to live.

    Gerald A. Carlino and Albert Saiz try to figure out if the geographically mobile are indeed heading to sunnier climes or if the leisure amenities follow the talent. They claim that quality of life comes first. The best and brightest are not chasing top employment opportunities. They are keener on finding a “cool” place to hang out.

    Other research suggests this approach may be limited. For example, although job growth has been very strong in some sun belt cities that are cited, growth rates in other amenity-rich cities – Boston, New York, San Francisco – have been well below par. Although often attractive to twenty-somethings, these areas also suffer a persistently strong net outmigration.

    Perhaps more to the point what use is any of this to those living in the heartland cities? Should Akron start putting more money in skateparks or global warming?

    There are huge problem in spending money in order to attract the geographically fickle. Fads fade and the mobile – largely people under 30 – will move again. And what about the people who can’t move? We’ve yet to address the mobility paradox.

    Moving to a better place might be one of the most distinguishing features of American culture. However, less and less people can manage to do so. There are considerably more “stuck” than there are “mobile.” The nomads of the knowledge economy comprise the global elite. They can live wherever they like and, particularly when young, can move at the drop of a hat.

    Where does that leave the postindustrial cities currently failing to attract the twenty-something demographic? One suggestion is to better educate people tethered to their neighborhood. The rub is that greater investment in your human capital will make your young adults more likely to leave. This is the mobility paradox. Regional workforce development has the unintended effect of increasing out-migration.

    A common response to the mobility paradox is the transformation of a downtown area into a “cool city.” The theory is that the best and brightest won’t leave if there are more fun things to do. Tying up the urban budget with projects aimed at retaining the creative class has its own perils. There is little, if any, evidence indicating that this policy will decrease the geographic mobility of the well-educated. Many cities stuffed with cultural amenities also sport high rates of out-migration. Furthermore, tastes change. ”Best places to live” lists change quite a bit from one year to the next.

    We should learn from the bust of hot destinations such as Florida or even California. Today’s paradise is tomorrow’s backwater. Meanwhile most of the population will continue to live in “Forgottenville.” Should we just forget about them?

    Globalization would seem to reward such an approach. Some cities will cut it, most won’t. Good luck dealing with the political instability. China gets away with ignoring its “old” cities thanks to robust growth and iron-fisted control. Given the current economic slowdown, things may be getting tense there, particularly in the left-behind industrial towns in the interior.

    So should amenities drive President Obama’s economic strategy? These days, the Sunshine States also are in dire need of a bailout. Alabama fights Michigan for federal attention. If the Rust Belt benefits from the Chicago President, let’s hope it’s for its own sake – not just the creative class.

    Read Jim Russell’s Rust Belt writings at Burgh Diaspora.

  • Daschle And State-by-State Healthcare Mistakes

    Tom Daschle appears before the Senate this week for confirmation as Secretary of Health and Human Services. While Daschle knows his stuff on health care (see his book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis), the discussion is likely to be sidetracked by those who champion a reliance on insurance companies, or on piecemeal reform starting with children. Or, as I’ll discuss here, on a wrong-headed impulse to depend on the states to create new health care models.

    Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

    Brandeis’ elegant language has been distilled to the phrase, “laboratories of democracy,” and used as if that’s a good thing. However, the converse also holds: bad ideas can be legislated at the state level and spread nationwide. One idea that continues to threaten to boil over the boundaries of a single state is “universal health insurance” achieved one state at a time. Oregon, Tennessee, California, and most famously Massachusetts have all experimented with versions, and other states have tried variations, particularly with children.

    I’ll get to the more general notion of why I think states can’t go it alone. But for now, I’ll give a quick rundown on how states have tried and failed.

    Critical Mass: Despite recent claims of a 97-percent coverage rate, Commonwealth Care, the Massachusetts plan, is struggling. You remember the Massachusetts plan: Mitt Romney was for it as governor before he was against it as a presidential candidate.

    The plan is a patchwork of good intentions, political and practical exceptions, and as-yet deferred but heavy-handed enforcement. There’s an appeals system, waivers, and “creditability” (this has to do with the comprehensiveness of the policy and the out-of-network charges).

    The crux of the Massachusetts law is a model of administrative clarity. The goal of insuring the uninsured was to be achieved in a couple of ways. One was that if health insurance was “offered by” an employer, the employee had to take it.

    The problem is that “offered by” the employer isn’t a clean standard. Employers might have an insurance plan that’s technically available to employees, but it might be too expensive for them, or for their families. To square this circle, Massachusetts subsidized employment-based coverage if it cost more than a certain percent of the person’s income, and raised the eligibility limits for public insurance. Those without employers were required to buy private insurance, and insurers were regulated to make the policies “affordable.”

    And then there are the penalties: “To enforce the mandate, [Massachusetts will] establish state income tax penalties for adults who do not purchase affordable health insurance….”

    These stipulations raise obvious questions. What is “affordable”? Will residents be penalized for buying a policy too expensive for their family budget? Will insurance companies be punished for selling them such policies (do I hear the words “sub-prime mortgage”?). Will premium arrearages be counted as medical debt in bankruptcy court?

    Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar, directors of the Health Reform Program at the Boston University School of Public Health, damned the Massachusetts legislation with faint praise in the Boston Globe last July: “the best law that could be passed.”

    Calling it “a blessing to 350,000 newly insured people,” they pointed out that a similar number remained uninsured, and that the law often “can’t work” largely for reasons of cost. The mandates, they said, required huge subsidies, boosted payments to providers without controls, and redistributed funds committed to the most vulnerable.

    Not surprisingly, by summer 2008, the lousy economy had begun to take its toll. To shore up the “coverage” rate, Massachusetts has reduced funding to safety-net hospitals, and has even cut millions of dollars from subsidized immunization programs. Patients wait six months for a physical.

    With no plan for reducing medical costs, the state is effectively obligated to bankrupt itself.

    The Oregon Lucky Number:

    Oregon in March – for the first time in more than three years – will begin accepting new beneficiaries in its Oregon Health Plan […] The state will use a lottery system to enroll 2,000 eligible applicants per month for 11 months. Kaisernetwork.org, Jan. 10, 2008

    The Oregon plan had lost two-thirds of its participants since freezing enrollment in 2004 and a lottery was deemed to be the fairest way to apportion openings.

    Government lotteries have been used for everything from real estate in tax foreclosure to placement in magnet schools or, showing my age, the chance to serve in Vietnam.

    Still, why should anyone have to depend on a lucky number to be treated for diabetes or cancer without going broke? If the plan is funded for 32,000 participants out of a total of 100,000 eligible residents, why didn’t they keep topping up as the numbers diminished? Or was there a theoretical break-even point somewhere?

    California Pipe Dream: In early 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a $14 billion program that supposedly mirrored the Massachusetts plan. The plan would have extended Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, to adults earning up to twice the federal poverty line, and to children, regardless of immigration status, who lived in homes with family incomes up to 300 percent above – about $60,000 a year for a family of four.

    One controversial element called for employers without health plans to contribute to a fund to help cover the working uninsured. Doctors were to pay two percent and hospitals four percent of their revenues to help cover higher reimbursements for those who treat patients enrolled in Medi-Cal.

    The ambitious program died in committee a year later, with legislators from both parties agreeing that it was unaffordable.

    Florida No Frills: A 2008 Florida package would allow insurers to offer “no-frills coverage to the state’s 3.8 million uninsured” residents. Residents ages 19 to 64 could purchase limited health coverage for as little as $150 per month; the policies would cover preventive care and office visits, but not care from specialists or long-term hospitalizations.

    “No frills” works better in airline travel than in health care. You can do without hot meals and pay extra for a headset or a Bloody Mary, but what Floridians will ultimately get for their $1800 a year and up are office visits and preventive care. It would probably be cheaper served à la carte and paid for in cash.

    Hawaii’s Keiki Care In October, 2008, Hawaii dissolved the only state universal child health care program in the nation after only seven months. Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator at the Department of Human Services, told a reporter, “People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free. I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”

    I should say not, but this disconnect between the intent of the program and its result makes perfect sense. Consumer behavior is supposed to be based on rational choices, and those parents who switched seem pretty rational. Hawaii’s solution seems simple and elegant, until you apply some basic laws of economics and behavior. Aloha, Keiki Care.

    Why States Can’t Do It Alone

    Why haven’t any of these state “universal health care” plans succeeded? Probably for the same reason that states can’t be self-sufficient in fossil fuels, or in banking. Most don’t produce their own fuels, and those that do can’t require their use within the state. They don’t print their own currencies. They have to compete with the rest of the world, public sector and private, for energy and capital.

    These are not minor issues with localized consequences. The decision-making alone requires resources that might not be available at the state level. We need national bodies to determine standards, to evaluate technology, and – remembering that Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, and the government employee system amount to around half of health care spending – to decide on the appropriate use of federal dollars.

    A final thought: Each additional set of rules, level of supervision, and geographic boundary may make sense initially. But when the lines drawn become indelible, and the bureaucracies created to enforce them calcify, we move further from the goal of providing health care. Jobs, and their budgets, become ends in themselves. We have to return to our original purpose and ask, “How can we get there?” One thing you can be sure of: it won’t be one state at a time. When it comes to health care, we need more unum and less e pluribus.

    Georganne Chapin is President and CEO of Hudson Health Plan, a not-for-profit Medicaid managed care organization, and the Hudson Center for Health Equity & Quality, an independent not-for-profit that promotes universal access and quality in health care through streamlining. Both organizations are based in Tarrytown, New York.

    Tom Daschle photo by: aaronmentele

  • Stop The Wall Street Bonuses

    These are tough times for Michael Bloomberg’s free-spending “luxury city.” High-end condominium speculators – long considered impervious to the mortgage crisis – are shivering in the bitter cold this winter. Four billion dollars in building projects have been postponed or canceled outright, in large part because Wall Street’s bonus babies are getting a tad less than they are accustomed to.

    Despite this, I would suspect most of America thinks Wall Street, and New York’s financial community, has not suffered enough. Industry bonuses are still expected to total well over $20 billion – small compared to last year’s stupendous $33.2 billion, but not an insignificant New Year’s present for the very people who have played a crucial role in wrecking the world economy.

    By one calculation, this sum breaks down to $137,000 per banker. For middling executives with eight years on the job, bonuses could average $625,000, 15 times the average income for American households. Without the infusion of taxpayer cash, it seems certain that these numbers would have been significantly less. Feel better now, America?

    True, some high-profile top executives wary of facing Congress have announced they will not be taking their stupendous bonuses this year. But these people should be able to scrape by with the tens of millions they bagged last year.

    However, some of the biggest losers – such as bailout-owed insurer AIG – seem to lack even a basic sense of shame. It appears AIG is handing out bonuses ranging from $92,000 to $4 million to some 168 employees. It wouldn’t shock me if some of these fall into the pockets of the same folks whose actions have proven an unmitigated disaster for both shareholders and the country.

    If only autoworkers, unemployed real estate agents and most of the rest of us, who are struggling to make our mortgage payments, had it so good. More important still, this state of affairs is not likely to encourage much faith in the capitalist system here or abroad. If free enterprise is worth anything, it should be about performance, risk and reward. By that standard, there is no justification for any bonuses on Wall Street this year.

    “It’s hard to believe they are still getting bonuses after wrecking so many lives,” marvels Susanne Trimbath, a financial analyst at STP Advisors. “This no longer has anything to do with performance but has become an entitlement.”

    Critically, Trimbath reminds us, we need to remember that some of these same bonus babies are primarily responsible for the housing meltdown that helped undermine the rest of the economy. It was Wall Street’s slicing and dicing of mortgage securities – not just McMansion-hunting suburbanites – that created the financial bases for the sub-prime loans and other excesses in the first place.

    The whole bonus mania, Trimbath adds, contributed to the problem. It encouraged investment bankers to “push the [mortgage securities] crap out the door, because that’s how they could earn bigger bonuses.”

    In the end, the remnants of Wall Street’s legions are still richly rewarded for their handiwork in unraveling the economy. This scenario turns Milton Friedman’s excellent point about the “social responsibility” of business on its head. Friedman correctly suggested that a businessperson’s primary obligation was not to serve some conjured-up idea of the public good but rather to make money for their shareholders and investors.

    One wonders what the late Nobel laureate would say to the same Wall Streeters who are desperate to get props for being green or socially enlightened but have no shame about devastating their investors.

    This spectacle could have long-term consequences for Wall Street’s future as an icon of capitalism. Someone in Congress (presumably not from New York) is sure to call for hearings once people learn of the big bonuses being doled out at bailed-out firms like Goldman Sachs. The class bent to enrich themselves with public largesse, it turns out, includes more than sleazy Chicago politicians.

    A populist rube from the Atlanta exurbs or the Great Plains might even come up with the bright idea to stamp out new bonuses and expropriate some of the ill-gotten gains made in previous years.

    The biggest push back will likely come from Robert Rubin disciples like Timothy Geithner, who will soon take over the Treasury, and the new National Economic Council chief, Larry Summers. Rubin will surely see the logic of Wall Street’s compensation system, since apparently he made over $115 million at Citigroup (where he serves on the board) while the firm has lost more than 70% of its value.

    Along with Bloomberg and Sen. Charles Schumer – aided, perhaps, by the star power of their proposed puppet Caroline Kennedy – these worthies will fight off any attack against the bonus babies. No doubt they will argue such action would harm New York’s economy. Think of what smaller or no bonuses will mean to the dog-walkers, toenail painters, personal trainers and high-end travel and real estate agents of Manhattan.

    ProPublica’s frequently updated map of financial bailout recipients reflects a massive transfer of money from the rest of the country to New York. A few other places – Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco – also have licked clean the seemingly bottomless federal ice cream bowl. What about the rest of the country?

    Even New Yorkers should consider whether bailing out Wall Streeters is so great for them in the end. Once among the most recession-proof economies in the country, the Big Apple’s dependence on financial bonuses has made it increasingly subject to the market’s boom and bust cycles.

    Indeed, the perverse effects of the bonus economy may well do more harm to New York than its political leaders let on or even realize. For one thing, it doesn’t create many new high-end jobs; even before the meltdown, industry employment from the last “boom” never reached peak levels hit in 2000.

    What these bonuses foster, instead, is an ultra-expensive environment inhospitable to more middle-class employment, although it does create a boom market for low-end service workers. The cost of living in Manhattan is the nation’s highest, standing at twice the national average.

    Once a city of capitalist aspiration, New York’s economy has devolved into a plutonomy where, in 2007, financial services employees gained a remarkable one-third of all income, much of it in the form of bonuses.

    Meanwhile, the city’s middle-class ranks shrink. The Big Apple now has the smallest percentage of middle-class residents – barely half – of any major urban center. Perhaps even worse, the flow of bonus checks has persuaded successive city governments that it’s not necessary to diversify the economy or cut exorbitant costs.

    Maybe it is time to end the whole way Wall Street operates – for the good of America, New York and indeed the reputation of capitalism. An insane system that overly rewards a few for being in the right place at the right time has outlived its usefulness. A more reasonable way of rewarding performance – and punishing missteps – needs to be put in its place.

    I hope the financial industry takes the lead in making these reforms. If not, change will come anyway – likely in the ham-fisted way that comes naturally to Washington.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

  • Current Policy Overlooks the New Homeless

    San Francisco: A Chevron employee is forced to move his family of four into their Mitsubishi Gallant after being laid off…

    Atlanta: Jeniece Richards moved from Michigan to Atlanta a year ago, but despite her best efforts, and two college degrees, remains homeless. She is living in temporary housing with her two children and younger brother…

    Denver: As Carrie Hinkle’s hours dwindled, she was forced to choose between paying rent or buying food for her daughter. The two are now working with local agencies towards permanent housing, again…

    These stories, plucked from the headlines of the past months are more than the typical holiday coverage. They show faces of the newly homeless, growing as the economy crumbles and opportunities fade.

    Facing layoffs and deep cuts in working hours, many in fragile circumstances could no longer afford their mortgage. More commonly, they were renting from a landlord who foreclosed on their residence. Healthy, hardworking and addiction-free, the new homeless are closer in demeanor and behavior to our neighbors than the overly-typified street drunk.

    Homeless resource programs across the country have been reporting record requests for assistance. A recent report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that, of 21 cities surveyed, 20 reported an increase in requests for food, with 59 percent coming from families. Nationwide, increased food stamps claims – a clear indicator of rising poverty – reached a record 31.6 million in September, up more than four million in a year according to the New York Times.

    California, which has had a homeless problem for decades, has become the epicenter for the newly homeless. The state’s unemployment rate rose to 8.4 percent in November from 5.4 percent in 2007, making it the third highest in the nation. Compounding the homeless problem is the state’s high foreclosure rates (third in the country, according to RealtyTrac data). Homeless programs from San Francisco to San Diego are reporting record numbers, mostly from newly homeless residents impacted by the housing crises or falling economy.

    Sadly this surge in homelessness comes just after a period when the problem was finally getting under control. One study by the Interagency Council on Homelessness found a 12 percent decrease in overall homelessness when comparing 2005 to 2007 data. That same time period also reveals a staggering 30 percent decrease in chronic homelessness (defined as being homeless for either over a year or for multiple stints).

    In 2000, the National Alliance to End Homelessness crafted their landmark Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. With successful bipartisan funding, 355 Ten Year Plans have been put into action nationwide.

    Such plans, and a strong economy, accelerated the recent gains in the fight against homelessness. But the surge in newly homeless and shrinking budgets now threatens to reverse the progress.

    New York City’s municipal shelter systems have seen record-setting increases over the past three months, according to the City’s Department of Homeless Services, but deep cuts loom ahead. Already, the city’s current budget includes a 3 million dollar decrease in outreach funding.

    Denver plans to slash nearly a fourth of its funding for homeless initiatives at a time when the city reports a 38-percent increase in homelessness over the past year (Denver Post).

    This situation will get much worse. A 20 percent increase of urban homelessness has been projected by the Interagency Council on Homelessness for 2009. Escalating homelessness and looming funding cuts create conditions for a renewed homeless crisis.

    In the past debate has focused on the mentally ill and substance abusers, but the new homeless represent different phenomena. President-elect Obama has the responsibility to increase assistance to the degree that reflects the expanding problem. Washington seems all too willing to prop up the corporate players of the American economy, but let us not forget about the hardest hit by these times. Swift action must be taken to assure that the problem of the new homeless becomes no more than a historical footnote – to assure that we as Americans can look back with pride knowing that even during our hardest hour, all were cared for.

    Ilie Mitaru is the founder and director of WebRoots Campaigns, based in Portland, OR, the company offers web and New Media strategy solutions to non-profits, political campaigns and market-driven clients.

  • Class and the Future of Planning

    Economic segregation may be a foregone conclusion, as studies have long suggested. For one thing, our first tendency is to buy the best place we can afford, intentionally locating to those parts of a region that appeal to others with similar buying power. Secondly, we tend to buy something most suitable to our tastes, which steers us into areas populated by those with similar viewpoints.

    The implications for contemporary planning processes are profound, especially since current best practices revolve so much around form and style and take so little measure of economics, choice, and consequence. It troubles me that my own decisions purchasing houses in the past – made after careful scrutiny of what evidence I could gather about the people living in the neighborhood – showed me that even a planner aware of attempts to integrate could choose segregation.

    But if planning is anything, surely it is the idea that what seemed inevitable can be bypassed with careful consideration, sequencing, and reorganization of inputs. Why plan for a different future if the results are the same as when you started? The idea of inevitable segregation narrows the planning options considerably.

    As a result, planners and community developers have focused not on enlarging the pie, but on figuring out how to appeal to those residents who show up for meetings. Whether these groups are affluent NIMBYs or poor advocates for low-cost housing, the status quo remains completely undisturbed.

    There are two main ways I’ve seen this occur. First is through the comprehensive planning process. The comprehensive planning process attempts to bring together connected but distinct elements – housing, transportation, the environment, the economy – and reassemble them into a cohesive, publicly vetted whole. But what really happens during such efforts?

    Planning staff assembles data. The contours of the process get articulation. Citizens get to describe their vision of their community. Flavor of the day ingredients dominate the discussion – pedestrian malls, node development, open space, wetlands preservation, smart growth, and now green collar jobs, sustainability, and social equity (whatever that is).

    The strong neighborhoods show up in force, working the system to their advantage. They often transform any land use or zoning issue into a referendum on the impacts on property values. The water treatment facility gets sited far away from such neighborhoods. Low-income housing becomes an articulated virtue, so long as its located elsewhere. This occurs in supposedly enlightened and ‘progressive’ neighborhoods like mine – Rosemont in Alexandria, Virginia – and places like Kensington near Berkeley, or in Fairfield County, Connecticut, where addressing homelessness is a rising priority – if it’s handled in Bridgeport and not Danbury or Shelton or Norwalk. Planning nearly always yields good results for neighborhoods like mine.

    In contrast, residents of struggling areas are skeptical of processes that have not benefited them very much in the past. In places like low-income parts of Norfolk, Virginia, “planning” has come to mean either 1950s style urban renewal or 1990s style gentrification. New Urbanism in Norfolk has often meant the very opposite of practical economic inclusion for low-income working households. The very idea that real change could both come and be beneficial to them is laughable. Their issues are not about landscaping with native plants: their concerns are jobs, crime, services, and housing affordability. Astute (cynical) planners soon discover that “respect” is also in play in these neighborhoods; merely listening with sincerity becomes a stand in for actual change. Listening requires no real work, certainly not compared to the heavy lifting of actually improving these areas for their current residents. Planning rarely adds much to these places.

    Middle-class neighborhoods want to preserve what they have. They don’t want their small claim on prosperity threatened by those from the troubled areas in town. They want nothing more than to preserve their safety and the small patch of grass they mow on the weekends. For families in these neighborhoods, the suburbs have for decades been a bastion from a changing urban setting that appears to always grant the rich a pass and provide unearned opportunity to the poor.

    Unable to migrate into the ranks of the upper middle class and penetrate the neighborhoods of lawyers and accountants and physicians, middle neighborhood residents often simply leave and form a place of their own. Plumbers and carpenters dislodged from Del Ray (an old blue collar neighborhood in Alexandria, VA) drive their pick-up trucks to Springfield, where they have a mall and plenty of ranch houses, and where they can safely raise their family while holding a job that does not require a college education.

    Planners generally dismiss these areas since they often come from the upper echelons and maintain a theoretical concern for the poor. But there are consequences when these middle income residents leave. Indeed the migration of these households out of the urban core and inner ring suburbs may be the most pressing social challenge facing planners. Unsexy as the housing concerns of the plumber may be, they are often the critical ones in terms of maintaining strong neighborhoods.

    Take a look at what has happened in the City of Geneva, New York, which is emblematic of so many communities in the middle of a city-county struggle for the middle class. The City’s pre-war manufacturing and agricultural history was sufficient to build a sophisticated infrastructure going into World War II. The arrival of the Depot and Naval Base in nearby Seneca brought overcrowding and congestion and triggered something of a building boom to Geneva. When the base closed, the city’s middle class left for newer housing and retail outside the city.

    As middle income residents have fled, the city itself has become a place of many have-nots and a few haves. Rather than invest to engender pride, safety, and a sense of community in the city’s neighborhoods – the small unstylish work of organizing – the doctrine sought to make downtown attractive, livable and appealing by applying the “edifice complex” or the “Field of Dreams theory”: if you build it they will come. Then the planners and developers get to stand around and wonder why downtown still feels empty.

    Along the way the city opened its doors to a raft of social service providers, inviting them to locate their business and clients downtown. The middle class watched, grew frustrated, and left for the periphery. Despite some of the most glorious – and reasonably priced – architecture in America, the middle class has left, taking with them much of the urban tax base. This creates a hole out from which few cities emerge.

    This is not at all unique to Geneva, as any planner and community developer knows. Its the case in my hometown of Alexandria, Virginia and in neighboring Arlington where programs do an admirable job of enabling some of the working poor to remain, while the middle has found greater comfort in leaving for other counties.

    There may be a way out of this dilemma. The central aim of community development should be to work the system in ways that generate wealth-building probabilities – both for individual households and for neighborhoods. The central aim of our work should be to expand the zone of acceptable and livable neighborhoods: to make more places more worthy of affection, not some extremely worthy and others barely so.

    Planning efforts must concern themselves less with process and more with outcome. Every block in every city can be objectively scored in terms of livability, as defined locally. In this approach, the community development process may be judged a failure if in service of a few individuals concentrated poverty and economic segregation grows. Marin County would no longer be able to balance its affordable housing ledger on the backs of Marin City and a few parts of San Rafael. Montgomery County, Maryland would no longer be able to use Prince George’s County as its de facto affordable housing policy. And genuinely struggling places like Ontario County, NY would not be able to look to the City of Geneva as their repositories of poor families and the hub of the area’s social service network.

    In the last thirty years, planners have reduced our field of vision. We have fostered an exodus of our middle class and focused on creating environments for the rich and poor. If we really want social equity, growing the middle is the best place to start.

    This means we have to change our priorities. We should stop trying to reinforce concentrations of wealth. Poor neighborhoods should not be defined solely as places and people who primarily “need” and never exercise choice. Instead our priority should be to help plan for an expanding middle class – even if it ruffles the feathers of some gatekeepers in both poor and affluent neighborhoods.

    Charles Buki is principal of czb, a Virginia-based neighborhood planning practice.

  • The Future of the Shopping Mall

    By Richard Reep

    “I had two rules for Christmas this year:
    1. Under 13 years old only;
    and
    2. Internet only.”
    –overheard at Stardust Video and Coffee in Orlando, Florida.

    One of the most distinctive benchmarks of contemporary American life, the classic indoor shopping mall, is now gasping for survival. The two rules expressed above were commonly heard during this shopping season, calling into question whether the 20th century indoor shopping mall will survive in its present form.

    Almost since it was born in the early 1950s, the shopping mall has engendered controversy. Few today recall the enthusiasm which greeted the first malls in the Midwest, giving shoppers something they previously lacked: adequate parking closer to a more varied selection of goods. Malls quickly caught on, and developers repeated this success across the country. The so-called regional mall became a new tourism destination, an economic engine powering local economies, and a cultural marker in which our suburban nation, recently empowered by the mass production of the car, took great pride.

    Malls, however, were decried by urban thinkers like Lewis Mumford and Jane Jacobs. For one thing, they turned the traditional building inside out, with the unlovely backs of the stores facing the exterior. For another, they required huge seas of asphalt to accommodate parking, necessitating long, arduous walks from the car to the mall door.

    Perhaps more seriously, however, thinkers criticized malls as dealing a lethal blow to the traditional Main Street. To support the development costs of the regional indoor shopping mall, the leasing prices only let large, national chain stores in, wiping out almost any vestige of local identity. Generally speaking, shoppers overlooked this fault in favor of access to a much greater diversity of goods and essentially deserted Main Street in droves.

    Architects and developers quickly gathered empirical evidence about people’s shopping patterns and applied these to the design, so by the 1970s the regional indoor shopping mall was perfected down to a reliable formula that could be applied consistently, with reliable and satisfying economic results to the landowner and his bank. Older malls, such as Lenox Square in Atlanta, underwent drastic renovations to adapt to the formula, increasing visitors and sales, and cementing the place of the regional mall in American culture.

    Yet the mall also had one largely overlooked advantage: its ability to deliver a safe, secure environment for its inhabitants. Being private property, the landowner could afford to eject suspicious behavior and deal with theft swiftly, in a way that police in a public setting could not. The mall could be secured in a way impossible for the traditional city street.

    Malls grew, finally testing the upper limits at over 4 million square feet in Bloomington, Minnesota. However, like dinosaurs, their great size and their slow speed have now limited their ability to adapt to changing times. Malls began to suffer a decline as early as the 1990s. This decline was due to challenges from big-box retailers, and the even more convenient commercial strip mall. Mall developers fought off these challengers by including both boxes and strips within new development tracts, so a new regional mall such as the Brandon Mall in Tampa, Florida opened in 1994 with a brand-new Target store and brick-façade strips flanking its entry. Shoppers parked at the main mall, shopped, and then parked in front of various strips, shopping their way out of the parking lot.

    Yet this model could not rescue malls, so developers started reinventing them as lifestyle centers. Retail was subsidized by dining and entertainment venues, and when the residential boom arrived around 2002 and 2003, condos were thrown in the mix. At the same time, consolidation of mall owners was taking place, and one of the single biggest mall owners, General Growth, was faced with the task of stewarding these giants into the new millennium.

    Yet even as “lifestyle centers”, malls have continued to suffer. General Growth and others like them found themselves fighting a defensive action, as per-square-foot sales of malls softened. At one time, they entertained the notion of adding hotels to malls, imagining that malls remained destinations. Shoppers, however, were getting scarcer, and except for Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) and the day after Christmas, it was becoming easier and easier to find a parking place in front of your favorite national department store.

    This year’s Christmas season has further weakened the malls. E-commerce retail, rising since 2000, accounts now for over $34 billion in retail sales, or 3.1% of total retail sales, for the third quarter of 2008 (source: U. S. Census Bureau). This rise continues to penetrate the physical retail environment, and the mall is the most vulnerable to this new form of commerce. Accompanied by a sudden drop of consumer spending, this trend has turned bad times into a veritable rout.

    For companies like General Growth, which has flirted with bankruptcy, tough times are ahead. Adaptive reuse strategies – turning malls back into town centers with residential density – remains one possible strategy. Another may be to retune old-line malls into destinations for fast growing consumer populations such as Hispanics. There are clearly many possibilities.

    In this sense malls represent a huge opportunity for a forward-thinking investor, and this building type should be analyzed for its positive features. Aside from the good portion of commercial debt it represents, the mall usually boasts a prime location within existing suburban infrastructure, and typically sits on level land that would ease redevelopment. A mall in east Orlando has already been changed into Mainsail, a private higher education facility. Others have been made into municipal service centers. The redeveloper may preserve the building and land whole or, like ancient Roman coliseums, malls may be disintegrated so that only fragments of the mall’s original development pattern will be noticeable.

    No doubt some malls will survive in unique pockets – and they could come to represent the new localism – if they have engrained themselves enough into local culture. This may be particularly true in outer suburbs where there was no Main Street and the mall has remained the focal point for local concourse and rendezvous.

    One thing is clear. Given the rise of internet commerce, and perhaps a long-term slowdown in consumer spending, the mall seems destined for a major makeover in the coming decade.

    Richard Reep is an Architect and artist living in Winter Park, Florida. His practice has centered around hospitality-driven mixed use, and has contributed in various capacities to urban mixed-use projects, both nationally and internationally, for the last 25 years.

  • Stimulate Manufacturing and Production, Not Consumption and Consumerism

    As store earnings plunged last week, the National Retail Federation proposed that the country create the mother of all sales by suspending taxes on all purchases. These tax holidays would occur in March, July and October and be national in scope.

    The bill, they suggested, should be picked up by – who else? – the federal taxpayer, who would make up for the lost local revenues even for the five states without sales taxes. The rationale, suggests the Federation’s chairman, J.C. Penney Chief Executive Myron Ullman III, in a letter to President-elect Barack Obama, would be “to help stimulate consumer spending as one of the first priorities of your new administration.”

    Now I can understand the manager at the local Target, Macy’s or Nordstrom feeling a bit neglected as money pours out to prop up financial institutions and the Big Three. This proposed subsidy for mallrats, however, makes the previous somewhat-dubious bailouts look like good policy.

    In fact, if there is one thing Americans do not need, it is yet another incentive to spend money they do not have. This has become a fixture of stimulus-think under the Bernanke-Bush regime. Remember the tax rebates earlier in the year? That was a big help, wasn’t it?

    Sadly, this “shop ’til you go bankrupt” strategy is being adopted by the new kingpins in Washington as well. Already you can hear Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, talking about a big stimulus to “prop up consumption.”

    This quick-fix approach has become a new genus of bipartisan madness. Like “the best minds of my generation … looking for an angry fix” – to recall Allen Ginsberg’s Howl – politicians and policymakers seem to feel we need some quick high to restore our battered economy.

    Like a bad drug habit, reckless stimulation may make us feel better in the short term, but it could leave us shaky later on. To be effective over time, a stimulus plan must first address some fundamental challenges that have haunted the American economy for a generation.

    Of course, there are countries that should be spending more. Places like China, Germany and Japan have gotten fat off our consumption. Now their beggar-thy-neighbor policies are backfiring as shopaholic nations, most notably the U.S., rein in their spending.

    In contrast, our economy’s failing stems from not producing nearly enough in goods and services to pay our bills. Our long-term weakness stems not from a shortage of consumer credit – the main obsession of Wall Street and both parties – but from the decline in manufacturing, growing dependence on imported fuel and deteriorating basic infrastructure.

    Our consumption patterns – coupled with disdain for production – explain how our deficit in goods-related trade alone has soared over the past two decades from roughly $100 billion annually to over $800 billion. In the process, we have created an enormous shift in currency reserves to countries like China, Russia, India, Korea, Brazil and Taiwan. They produce and save too much; we consume and borrow too much.

    Reversing this dangerous disequilibrium does not necessitate the end for American-style capitalism – as suggested recently by France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy – but instead a paradigm shift within it.

    First, we need to swear off our addiction to hype-driven bubbles, seen first in technology and more recently in real estate. The fact that the government may be about to start yet another – this one colored “green” – suggests bad habits are hard to break.

    Of course, bubbles certainly benefit some individuals and companies, most notably the financial sectors, who can best take advantage of wild speculative swings. The financial sector’s share of profits more than doubled as a percentage of national income since the 1980s.

    However, this pattern has not worked so well for most Americans, who have seen their wages stagnate or even fall. Most of us would benefit far more from robust growth that stems from productive industries like energy, fiber, food, logistics and manufacturing. Parts of the industrial Midwest, Texas and the Southeast have enjoyed expansions in these fields – until the onset of the recession, at least.

    More important, productive economic growth creates demography far more egalitarian than the Namibia-like bifurcation that characterizes bubble centers like Manhattan and San Francisco. In fact, notes University of Washington demographer Richard Morrill, areas with greater concentration of these kinds of industries tend to suffer less inequality and offer better prospects for the average middle class worker.

    Concerns over income equality should persuade Democrats – the supposed party of the people – to focus primarily on the basics of economic growth. This is precisely what we have not been doing for over a generation.

    Just think of the billions sunk into convention centers, yuppie condos, performing arts centers and other ephemera. These produce some high-wage short-term construction and architecture jobs, but after that, they offer largely low-paying service work. Meanwhile the Chinese and other competitors dredge new harbors, build high-speed rail systems, new freeways and fiber-optic lines – the keys for pushing their economies to the next stage.

    Sure, you can say the Chinese are also hurting from this financial crisis. But at least they can pay for their own stimulus. The Germans, Russians and Japanese, for now, can also dip into their dollar reserves to pay for new infrastructure investment. In contrast, we will have to beg the money for our stimulus like some busted-up small-town bookie.

    More serious yet, the real problem may be whether we even want to make the changes necessary to boost our economy. Americans were once masters of both innovation and production, but we have begun to fall behind on both counts.

    Indeed, our policies no longer focus on such things as manufacturing and energy production, deeming them beneath our dignity. As early as the mid-1980s, the New York Stock Exchange issued a report baldly stating that “a strong manufacturing economy is not a requisite for a prosperous economy.”

    At the same time, we have deluded ourselves into believing that a small number of “creative” alchemists – software engineers, hedge fund managers, urban developers – could transform code, cash and condos into limitless pots of gold. The huge winnings of these few would then allow the rest of us to spend like teenagers on a borrowed credit card, consuming everything made by the hard-working fools abroad.

    By now we should know better. Americans possess no monopoly on “creativity.” Our suppliers abroad are using the billions made from selling us everyday stuff to help finance future moves up the value-added scale. You can see it in every critical field from aerospace, steel and pharmaceuticals to software services, fashion design and entertainment.

    Americans can meet this challenge but not by goading the family to spend more at Wal-Mart. Instead, we need to remember what actually drives economic growth. The ultimate fate of the economy will not be determined in the malls, but in the mines, oilfields, farms, factories, design shops and laboratories of a more productive economy.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

  • State Budget Woes

    A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities highlights the increasingly precarious fiscal situation faced by state governments confronting the ongoing economic downturn. According to CBPP, “at least 44 states faced or are facing shortfalls in their budgets for this and/or next year, and severe fiscal problems are highly likely to continue into the following year as well.”

    The scope of these emerging deficits varies greatly. Mississippi currently has a budget deficit of around $33 million, which “could reach as high as $70 million-$80 million by the end of the fiscal year.” On the high end of the spectrum, California faces the daunting prospect of a $15 Billion deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30, with the potential for “another $25-billion-plus for the next fiscal year,” if nothing is done to bring the shortfall under control.

    The process of bringing budgets into balance should be the source of much political turmoil over the next year. In Minnesota, which has a predicted two-year deficit of $6 Billion, legislators are beginning to spar over the potential tax increases and budget cuts. On Dec. 26, Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced $271 million in “emergency cuts,” with a large share coming from aid payments to local governments. Legally required to have a balanced budget, as are many states, legislative leaders in Minnesota face the prospect of a challenge “so ugly that a special summer session will be needed to finish the budget.” In New York, which faces the “largest deficit in state history,” Governor David Patterson recently presented an “austerity budget,” calling for cuts in state aid to local governments, education funding, and property tax rebate programs. Looking at all potential options to fill the gap, Patterson has also “appointed a commission to look into leasing state assets,” including bridges, roads, and parks. The privatization of state assets and infrastructure as a means to raise funds is also being considered in Minnesota and Massachusetts, which faces a FY2009 deficit of over $2 billion.

    With states potentially facing a combined deficit of $350 billion through FY2011, the pressure to make difficult policy decisions is sure to increase, as are requests for outside aid. Already, there are calls for the federal government to step into the fray, with governments across the nation “lining up to ask President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars to plug holes in their budgets”. Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, facing a two-year deficit of $7.3 billion, is “preparing a pitch for three chunks of money,” to be delivered to the states to support education, infrastructure, and aid to the poor. CBPP also argues that there is a need for federal assistance, in order to “lessen the extent to which states take pro-cyclical actions that can further harm the economy.” Facing an increasingly challenging economic situation which may limit the options at their disposal, it appears that states will look to the incoming Obama administration to find ways to stop “the bleeding.”