More and more, regionalism is a distraction from the things that really matter for cities.
That’s certainly the case in Memphis, and it’s why we’re swearing off any regional plans and programs until it’s proven clearly that there’s something in them for Memphis, because it’s been shown that regional economic development plans do little to help the urban core.
It’s evident that much of our region feel no moral imperative – or enlightened self-interest – to help Memphis. Often the people in the region simply see Memphis’ problems as Memphis’ problems despite the obvious impact on their cities. It’s a version of the “it’s all about me” attitude that seems to grip so much of the political landscape these days, whether in the halls of U.S. Congress or City Halls in our region.
Here’s the thing about regionalism: It’s hard for us to think of one plan or program cast as regional in nature that ended up helping Memphis. The poster child is of course transportation, which time after time promoted highways that fed the sprawl choking the urban core. Even today, most people are willing to pretend that I-269 is a vital regional economic artery rather than the sprawl-inducing, developer-driven boondoggle, and only Shelby County Commissioner Mike Ritz is willing to raise the seminal issue about our having one of the most unrepresentative MPO’s in the country.
One-Way Policies
It’s no wonder that for decades, public transit has been an afterthought – if thought of at all – in transportation plans. With a clientele with little influence and with no lobbyists campaigning for them, riders of MATA have soldiered on with a mediocre transit product that is nothing short of an embarrassment for Memphis. Not long ago, Congressman Steve Cohen even said that MATA is doing a good job in light of its budget, but as usual, it begs the question of why alleged regional transportation plans – required by the federal government – are content with a third world public transit system for Memphis.
Then there is regional economic development planning, which treats low-wage, low-skill jobs as our destiny. There have been regional anti-poverty programs, but they have appeared to be designed more to keep the massive welfare machinery and jobs intact than to move poor people out of poverty.
Meanwhile, the region remains oblivious to what ails Memphis, where poverty has risen 27% since 2000 and the poverty rate for adolescents has climbed to almost 45%. More to the point, the region’s politicians treat troubling trends for Memphis – loss of three middle-class families a day, loss of five people with college degrees a day, population loss of 28% inside 1970 city limits of Memphis and density cut in half – as a boon for their own cities.
That’s why it’s always possible to crowd a room with regional leaders to talk about roads, but it’s just as impossible to get them back to talk about attacking the highest economic segregation rate in the U.S.
Research concludes that to create 100 jobs in the inner city, 850 jobs have to be created in the rest of the city and 1,450 jobs in the region. It seems that the trickle down theory is aptly named, because regional growth does little for the inner city. Part of the problem is that regionalism tends to treat any job as a good job and it focuses on quantity rather than quality. Contrary to the rhetoric, a rising tide does not lift all boats.
It was about 20 years ago that regionalism was introduced here, and in retrospect, it’s obvious that much more good will and commitment flowed out of Memphis to the region than the reverse. More to the point, North Mississippi in fact amplified the problems of Memphis by adopting an economic development program whose foundation is raiding our companies.
Yes, we know full well that regions are the economic units of competition in the global economy. But we now also know now that regions may work for financial capital, but they don’t work for the social capital that is needed to fight the problems facing Memphis. Aided and abetted by the federal government, the obsession with more and more infrastructure overwhelms programs to fight poverty, improve job training, reform schools, and more.
If the federal government is serious about cities, it would take the Race To The Top approach that forced states to massive reform of public schools and apply it to its regional emphasis. For example, what could be done if the federal government held out $5 billion to force regional innovation for urban problems?
That’s why it’s time for New Regionalism – one that is urban-centered. It’s way past time for us to ease up in Memphis of rhetoric of regionalism and act with single-minded concentration on transformative strategies that can create the city of choice that Memphis Mayor A C Wharton is pursuing – one where talent is developed, attracted and retained; where poor people have pathways out of poverty; and where students are treated as solutions, not problems.
Sadly, too few people in the region understand that solutions to these problems strengthen their futures as well as Memphis’s. Cities are like people – other people base their value on what value you tell them you have. Now, we are telling our region – and our own people – that they are not valued by the city itself, because it’s the region that really matters.
New Regionalism
It’s a message too often implicit, if not explicit, in regionalism programs around the nation.
Our region didn’t just happen to turn out the way that it did. It’s exactly the region that our policies set out to create. They supported sprawl and subsidized lifestyle choices as people moved farther and farther out. Of course, reality is setting in, because it’s middle class families that pay for the debt run up for sprawl, for more expensive commutes and with flagging housing prices.
We should begin the era of New Regionalism by rejecting the loud talk about regionalism that will inevitably come. The Greek chorus of regionalists will unquestionably call again for all of us to sign on to the leading policy concept of the past 20 years, a policy that unfortunately has done nothing to improve the lot of cities.
We need to reject as assertively as possible the “all boats will rise” gospel that says the problems of poverty and joblessness in cities will be reduced with more regional economic growth. It hasn’t worked that way here, and there’s little to suggest that it will change. Michael Porter’s research concluded that economic expansion in the region only accounts for about one-third of the urban city’s growth.
It’s the City, Stupid
These days, all of a sudden, people are wringing their hands because the Brookings Institution reports that suburban poverty is growing. It drew headlines across the U.S. in cities like ours where no one has shown much concern when urban poverty deepened despite the big promises of regionalism.
That’s why we are so glad that Mayor Wharton’s City of Choice plan is unabashedly Memphis-focused and that he’s using his bully pulpit to convene and convince partners to join a campaign to fight for the city.
From where we sit, it’s high time to put the emphasis where it belongs – the heart of the region itself.
I agree 100%. Growth in the city core will lead to spill over growth in the region. Brookings Institution just came out with another report asking the President and Congress to create policies to shift America’s population back to the inner cities. Why? Because 75-80% of U.S. economic growth comes from the top 100 cities. Cities are the ones that attract talent and create innovation.
SCM,
It is just semantics, but I have to take issue with the underlying concept behind this post. Calling for a “New Regionalism” suggests that there is in fact some sort of regional thought process behind local decision making at present. There really is not, at least nothing beyond what is driven by federal mandates.
Just as one example, I refer to the “outer loop”, now I-269. Older reports in the topic shows that TDOT did not at first plan for an extension of the loop into Mississippi. In fact TDOT gave an opinion that referenced any connection to a Mississippi section of the loop would require some sort of commitment from MDOT, seeing as there were no plans for any interchanges south of the connection with the Nonconnah (now that an extension has been designed, an interchange is planned at U.S. 72). Thus even where roadways are concerned, “regionalism” seems more forced than desired.
Two more thoughts:
How exactly did anyone ever propose that those in the most dire financial situations would be able to make a daily 10 mile commute to jobs in the “region” when their situation prohibits car ownership and the “region” has resisted any idea of a metropolitan wide transit system?
Within the concept of regionalism is the idea that cities are the connection between a region and the global economy. Cities draw upon the resources of the region in this exchange and focuses this potential into economic growth and the region in turn benefits from this exchange by allowing their “goods” or resources to be traded in a larger market that can support greater value beyond what might be found locally. This whole concept is based on the idea of a thriving region where the resources and “goods” outweigh the region’s baggage. When one examines the region around Memphis, the image is not exactly a positive one. Shelby Count, with a poverty rate of 16% is a relatively affluent island in a sea of poverty. The city is surrounded on all sides by counties with poverty rates that approach and surpass 30% of the population (Crittenden: 25%, St. Francis: 28%, Lee: 30%, Tunica: 33%, Coahoma: 36% and Humphreys: 38% among others). As far as educational attainment, while at least 80% of those in Shelby County have received at least their high school diploma- or beyond, that number drops to 66% in Hardeman, 62% in Lauderdale, 60% in Tunica, 58% in Benton, 56% in Lee, etc… It’s no wonder that where population and employment growth are concerned, our region outside the metropolitan area and Jonesboro, has been stagnant at best and rapidly declining in the most severe cases. Phillips County, AR is estimated to have lost over 18% of its population between 2000 and 2008. All that to say, if Memphis is the culmination and apex of the region, we should count ourselves lucky to be doing as well as we are, but how long can even that continue?
Excellent post, SCM.
In my opinion, it’s time to start looking at a payroll tax or a regional tax base sharing program. I did not agree with your stance on consolidation, but I certainly think it’s time for those who come into the city from the outlying areas start helping pay for the city’s upkeep.
good idea, 1st we’ll take new enabling legislation to the Republican State Legis-….no wait, never mind.
There are conflicting attorney general opinions, but there does appear to be a way to have a privilege tax rather than a payroll tax.
good idea, 1st we’ll take new enabling legislation to the Republican State Legis-….no wait, never mind.
Lets get Offie Ford temporarily cognizant enought to sponsor such legislation in the upcoming session.
no worries.
then we can achieve the same results the consolidation cabal wanted-shake down the burbs to keep the rotting core afloat a couple more decades.
This election cycle will be seen as the year of the Big Lie. As Interested Observer proves over and over. At least the consolidation cabal could tell the difference between the truth and the lie, unlike the Save Shelby fear mongers. We should tip our hats in admiration to them because never has a group been better at looking us right in our eyes and lying. Over and over and over.
IO: There is an option that does not require legislative approval or action. It would probably be decided by a court. But if the core is rotting so badly, why do 70% of the people in towns work there? And just to get the record straight, consolidation was never about shaking down the suburbs. Despite the lies that were told, the tax rate could not have changed substantially and all the fears that the suburbs expressed can be done easier in the present structure, from single source funding to cost shifting.
Urbanut: We agree completely with you. New regionalism begins at the core and works outward. Regionalism around the country, but particularly here, has been an elaborate bait and switch. It gets lip service from the ‘burbs and little else, as shown by 25 years of regionalism rhetoric here, and the city gives up more than it gets in pursuit of the elusive gold ring.
Urbanut: Blog post from you on this subject?
SCM: Sure, I definitely have some thoughts on the topic even should my first make the cut- should be on the editors desk today or tomorrow.
IO-
If we are going to ride this tangent off the rails, let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing. In stating the false claim that the suburbs were in fact being called upon to save the “rotting core”, are you suggesting that non-involvement on the part of the suburbs will afford them the possibility of a blissful existence regardless of the fate of the central city? If so, I find it interesting that the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics regarding job growth from September ’09 through September of this year shows a net loss of 9,100 jobs in Memphis. Please not that the bureau does not distinguish between jobs lost within the Memphis city limits and those lost in Southaven, West Memphis, Germantown, etc… Are you somehow under the impression that the jobs that have been lost during the recession were cut based on the municipality in which the employee lived?
The report should strike near terror into the heart of every leader and resident in the metropolitan area. Our private sector job total has officially slipped below the 500,000 mark which in turn officially drops us a peg where peer cities are concerned. As the bureau (and reality!) demonstrate, employment knows no municipal boundary. A company departing the city will mean job loss that is as likely to impact the inner city as it is Lakeland. Healthy suburbs depend on a healthy city.
YAWN.
next crisis pelase.
We are a REGION on barely hanging on. We don’t need you bored and sleepy. We need you in the game, working on the things that really matter.
I’ll ask again, I/O, what are your ideas or thoughts on improving the Memphis Metro region? Or, seriously, do you believe Memphis can rot and die while all the suburbs prosper as never before? Seriously, drop the s/a comments for once and man up.
1. halve the MCS budget. closing the 50 schools is a start.
2. build new jail complex to hold twice the population incarcerated now. then enforce all the laws on the books to the fullest extent. no tolerance.
3. prosecute any landlord who fails to maintain property.
4.streamline the development process. create a single Economic Development Office sans HCD, MHA, OPD, legislative interference. aggressively recruit local talent to stay put.
5.Send Coach Larry Porter’s resume to the Dallas Cowboys.
Well, maybe not that last one. Dalls may yet win again this year.
There. your turns.
1.State law won’t allow city to “halve the MCS budget.” We just went through all that, haven’t you been paying attention? Although I generally agree with the sentiment.
2.Huge new jail costs big bucks, hundreds of millions, where do you propose to raise the taxes to do so? My idea would be to quit enforcing illegal drug laws at all and concentrate on crimes against persons and property. Catch someone with meth, dope or coke? Confiscate and flush it, then let them go.
3. Agree. But that costs money too.
4. Agree in principle.
There’s no rationale for cutting the MCS budget, but we agree about the closing of the schools. We’d spend more money on the kinds of personal interventions that keep people from dropping our of school. We know the crucial points in students’ education but we don’t build personalized programs around those points to respond to the individual challenges and needs.
As for the jail complex, we need to remove all nonviolent juveniles from the justice system since all research shows that it’s the first step toward ensuring a life of crime. As Mayor Luttrell says, we need to get as serious about attacking the seedbeds of crime as locking people up.
We’d get serious about spending money on early childhood services (prenatal to 3 years) since it’s inarguable that those years shape the choices that people have for their futures. We can spend $4500 a year now to create more options for kids or $45,000 later to keep them in jail. Unfortunately, politicians line up to do the latter.
Agree completely about economic development and talent. But it’s not enough to aggressively recruit. We have to create the quality of life that young professionals are looking for and to understand why they are leaving.
We’re basketball fans so we’re more interested in Coach Pastner, and we’ve questioned why our school has a football program at all (or does it really have a football program). Pastner might could give us some tips about talent recruitment and retention, come to think of it.
We’d get serious about planning and urban design. We’d get serious about rationalizing tax policy and injecting more equity into the system.
We’ve got lots more but that will do for now.
You’re dead wrong about no rationale for cutting Memphis City Schools budget.
MCS students cost $10,000/year X 4 years = $40,000!
I’ll take his from Urbanaut’s post on another topic:
“It costs just under $34,000 annually to keep a person in the Shelby County Jail.
The tuition to send a child to (High School annual tuition):
Hutchison: $17,101
MUS: $17,100
Lausanne: $16,725
Briarcrest: $11,895
St. Agnes- St. Dominic: $11,875
Harding: $10,395
Christian Brothers: $9,850
Memphis Catholic: $7,800
How many of those in prison in Shelby County would be there had they attended one of these schools for half the annual cost it now requires to support them? Which do you think is the better investment of tax funds?”
It’s easy to see the rational in that light, “It’s cheaper to put a kid in prison in Memphis than it is to use the public education system. You save $6000/kid. That adds up.”.
What do all those schools have that’s different than MCS?
RESULTS!
—
MCS needs to take lessons from CB!
This is an obvious problem of insane mismanagement on the part of MCS.
BK- I really appreciate the reference, but my actual point was more along the lines that instead of spending $34,000 on these individuals in order to keep them incarcerated, it would be a better investment to spend half that amount earlier in life on a better education. I come up with an annual expenditure of about $5,700 per high school student. See my reasoning below. If our degree of “caring” for individuals is based on how much we invest in their existence, training or support I would conclude that annually we are 1/6 as interested in seeing that a student in high school (grades 10-12) receives a good education as we are that a criminal in the Shelby County… exists until they are released.
Here’s the nerd in me:
Per the $10,000 annually per high school student, I am having trouble coming up with your figure. The proposed MCS 2010-2011 budget is $891,717,277. Of that $58,664,789 is budgeted for “High School” which consists of grades 10-12. The likely inflated projected enrollment figures for grades 10-12 comes out to 22,866 students. Based on those figures I come up with an annual expenditure of $2567.89 per student just for high school instruction. Once you factor in such activities as band, athletics, student exhibitions, textbooks, substitutes you add $12,956,553 (which funds those items for the entire school district but lets pretend they go to high school students alone) which adds an additional $566.63 per student annually. We are now up to $3,134.52/student annually grades 10-12. Let’s add Technology and Career Instruction funding along with advanced placement instruction funding even though we know these funds are not being concentrated entirely on students in grade 10-12. That adds $25,733,849 to the budget or $1367.62 per student annually bringing our total up to $4502.14 per student annually grades 10-12. Even if we add the Instructional Support budget meant for the entire school system and applied it just to the high school students it would add $870.47 to that total bringing us to the way overinflated figure of $5372.61. Utilities adds about $275 which brings us to $5674.61. I did not include the extensive amount of funding that goes towards Health and Counseling services, but seeing as I grossly overestimated the percentage of funding that was going to students in high school, I think we can call it a wash. I also purposely did not include the costs associated with facilities maintenance and chose to focus on the primary service of educating students. This was due in part to my belief that it is in the number of facilities, management and maintenance that we stand to find significant savings for taxpayers. This was about teachers, books, extracurricular activities, heat, light and water.
2 things about private school tuition: one, those schools take only who they want, public schools have to take everyone and two, in many of those schools, the tuition isn’t the entire cost of the education, there are often endowments which hold down the tuition cost somewhat.
What a tangent and I admit I contributed to this derailment. If you have not seen “Waiting for Superman” you should really make an effort to include a viewing in your schedule.
As long as you are making time in your schedule to view “Waiting for Superman,” add a little time for the Diane Ravitch review of the film where she debunks it thoroughly.
You can read it here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/
Packrat-
Interesting idea regarding increasing the level of funding available for students without necessarily increasing tax revenues or redirecting funding from the justice system. Can one make financial donations to the MCS via a private endowment or trust that could then be used as a write-off when calculating one’s taxes?
I’m sure you could set up a 501c3 for and endowment for public schools. But I guess my point was that the actual cost of education at many private schools is more than the listed tuition cost. I graduated from one of those schools Brian listed and I know it to be true.
Jacobus-
Actually I think Diane Ravitch entirely missed the point of the film. What I took away from it is that our current education system and the unions that support the general method of employing teachers stifles any creative approach in ensuring that students are in fact receiving the education they deserve. Ravitch definitely missed the intended message of the film and it is reflected when she sums up the basic concept as public schools bad- charter schools good. Of course, the fact the film is indirectly critical of some of the NAEP’s practices, which Ravitch serves as a board member, would certainly have nothing to do with her objections.
The responses I have seen thus far have been critical from those most likely to defend the existing system and praiseworthy from those most likely to advocate reform.
The message I got from the film was that there are schools- public, charter and private- achieving incredible results while being attended by students from diverse social, ethnic and economic backgrounds. These schools are achieving these results in part because they are unencumbered by the bureaucratic, contradictory and sometimes outright backward mandates imposed by federal, state and union authorities. The message follows that we have numerous precedents and examples that show what works and why while describing some of the flaws inherent in a system that prevents schools from achieving the same results elsewhere. If anything, I thought the film questioned the need for private and charter schools if the public school system was reoriented to place the education of the student first and foremost.
Urbanaut,
I agree with you and your calculation method, but, MCS bills $10,000 per student per year. That’s all I have on that. for now.
As far as the reasons schools fail and why these bureaucratic messes get entrenched, I think it’s because they threaten people who would stand up to them, the people who should buck the system don’t, and the people that would buck the system are already educated absent of that kind of knowledge.
—–
At some point it will be disclosed that the kind of specialized knowledge that breeds these system buckers is absent from modern education, and that something more sinister has been put in it’s place. That’s when you will have woken up society to that and it being a known missing thing, they can then search for that knowledge and make a different future.
——-
Right now, they don’t even know that they don’t know it’s missing.