An Office of Urban Policy? Damn. I guess Clinton and Edwards may well have done same thing. But I've got to believe that this has something to do with having a president who lives in a city. And, again, being a black man. Maybe it'll be one big bureaucratic clusterfuck. I don't know. I'm interested though. It's good to see they're trying.
Also, I think that being a community organizer in a major city was a huge reason for this. As someone who works with community-based groups, the idea of a President who has done organizing work thrills me to no end.
I'm one of those rare small government liberals who thinks the sheer weight of bureaucracy can get in the way of making government work for the people in new and efficient ways. I'm against most new offices and the whole homeland security thing was a huge disaster.
But this is just awesome, and so long overdue. Our cities have gone to shit, and mayors all over the country are freaking out about the lack of vision on a federal level.
By the way, a big part of the problem on this issue is the electoral college. With most of the biggest cities in the country in safe states for one party or another (not to mention the fact that most cities vote dem anyway) there's not much reason to push this kind of thing from a political perspective, at least in the executive branch.
This is the thing that's made me most excited so far about the prospect of Obama coming in.
This, to me, is a vindication of the US city mayors who are seeking a larger role in federal policy making. Bloomberg and Obama working together at last! Less MTA fare hikes please?!
Of course you wouldn't see this in a Republican Administration. Real Government for Fake America? That's be like appointing an ambassador to Azeroth, or negotiating trade deals with Candyland
As an urban planning and community development scholar/activist, this is the best thing to come from Obama's Administration. Now all he needs is to back away from his perpetuation of welfare reform and HOPE VI/housing mobility proposals and I'll really be fired up.
What's new, or at least new-ish, is the emphasis, and it is long overdue. It wouldn't have been done in a Kemp administration in the way BHO will do it, and I imagine I'll like this one a lot more ... maybe in Jack's case it was playing all those years in Buffalo. Anyway, there's been a Department of Housing and Urban development languishing since the end of the UDAG and block-grant days; when was that? Nixon?
The best thing about this plan, and I say this as an Upper West Sider, is that it does not conflate "urban" with "policy".
Sure, it will address issues such as access to jobs that are pressing issues in poor urban neighborhoods. But for too long Americans have had the idea that "urban" = "the projects", and it's really not good for cities.
But "urban" issues like quality schools, policing, and most importantly infrastructure are actually crucial to both low income neighborhoods and wealthy or gentrifying ones. Look at the North Side of Chicago - it's a success as American cities go, but it's being crushed as a result of America's totally inadequate mass transit funding. Spending some time in Europe or Asia will show you what cities can be like if the national government actually gives a fuck.
Thank God our Cities need attention as they have been ignored far too long and have been allowed to become cesspools of violence which only filters out to the suburbs. Some don't get that.
I love it, and finally a "czar" post coming from someone who actually has some experience on the subject. Its not a drug czar whos experience is a bottle of valium in the drug chest or a homeland security czar who has a gate around his house.
The southside is as rough an urban hood as any other in the US.
So what are the "urban" issues that are impacted significantly by Federal Funding/Regulations?
I mean i think transit/infrastructure clearly.
Crime really seems like a state/local thing except for the whole "war on drugs".
Education is similarly largely local outside of NCLB which omst people would say has been a failure...
I could think of some other things, maybe smart growth iniatives or something, but really I'm wondering what types of things might an urban policy czar do?
I'd like to see discussion on some sort of a Fedaral Tax break to offset the ridiculously high taxes most city dwellers pay vs. their suburban neighbors. Again to encourage smart growth/discourage the sprawl etc...
The difference between an Office and a Department may, unfortunately, be that a Department has staff, a budget, and power. Most federal Departments (headed by Cabinet secretaries) have hundreds of thousands of employees. An office could have a couple hundred, or as few as, well, a few -- adding another layer of bureaucracy and/or a few meaningless advisors.
Or, the office could be a center of power coming up with creative policies to help urban and metropolitan areas, policies which Obama and the rest of his administration really get behind and push through Congress.
Could go either way. I don't think the creation of the office itself is a cause for celebration.
I agree with G - more bureaucracy is not the answer, and I'm willing to bet that a huge percentage of federal spending (transportation, block grants, welfare and other social programs) get eaten up by urban areas in the first place.
I'm a lifelong city dweller, but this just sounds like a promise to throw more money around, and I'm very doubtful that it's a winning strategy.
We already have a Cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD - you know, the people who make the HUD-1 form you sign when you buy a house?).
This will be just a nice set of offices and a nice bunch of people who get high government pay to sit around and make power point presentations and fly to cities and shake hands with mayors and give talks while staying in nice hotels. Probably also give a bunch of grants to a bunch of college professors to "study urban issues."
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan already pointed out why cities have gone to shit.
Now we need action, not studies done by talkers/writers/salary-collecting do-nothings.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
It's definitely something you'd never see in a Republican administration--yet another example of their failure to think long-term.
Also, I think that being a community organizer in a major city was a huge reason for this. As someone who works with community-based groups, the idea of a President who has done organizing work thrills me to no end.
I'm one of those rare small government liberals who thinks the sheer weight of bureaucracy can get in the way of making government work for the people in new and efficient ways. I'm against most new offices and the whole homeland security thing was a huge disaster.
But this is just awesome, and so long overdue. Our cities have gone to shit, and mayors all over the country are freaking out about the lack of vision on a federal level.
By the way, a big part of the problem on this issue is the electoral college. With most of the biggest cities in the country in safe states for one party or another (not to mention the fact that most cities vote dem anyway) there's not much reason to push this kind of thing from a political perspective, at least in the executive branch.
This is the thing that's made me most excited so far about the prospect of Obama coming in.
This, to me, is a vindication of the US city mayors who are seeking a larger role in federal policy making. Bloomberg and Obama working together at last! Less MTA fare hikes please?!
Of course you wouldn't see this in a Republican Administration. Real Government for Fake America? That's be like appointing an ambassador to Azeroth, or negotiating trade deals with Candyland
Thank God. It was time for this 30 years ago when manufacturing started to crumble.
I would consider myself a small government liberal too but this is just awesome and long overdue.
As much as it pains people like Palin, cities with all of those 'queers' 'liberals' and 'minorities' are where it's at now.
Chock one up for the fake Americans
this is from him living in a city, working in a city, and working with poor folk.
As an urban planning and community development scholar/activist, this is the best thing to come from Obama's Administration. Now all he needs is to back away from his perpetuation of welfare reform and HOPE VI/housing mobility proposals and I'll really be fired up.
What's new, or at least new-ish, is the emphasis, and it is long overdue. It wouldn't have been done in a Kemp administration in the way BHO will do it, and I imagine I'll like this one a lot more ... maybe in Jack's case it was playing all those years in Buffalo. Anyway, there's been a Department of Housing and Urban development languishing since the end of the UDAG and block-grant days; when was that? Nixon?
The best thing about this plan, and I say this as an Upper West Sider, is that it does not conflate "urban" with "policy".
Sure, it will address issues such as access to jobs that are pressing issues in poor urban neighborhoods. But for too long Americans have had the idea that "urban" = "the projects", and it's really not good for cities.
But "urban" issues like quality schools, policing, and most importantly infrastructure are actually crucial to both low income neighborhoods and wealthy or gentrifying ones. Look at the North Side of Chicago - it's a success as American cities go, but it's being crushed as a result of America's totally inadequate mass transit funding. Spending some time in Europe or Asia will show you what cities can be like if the national government actually gives a fuck.
Thank God our Cities need attention as they have been ignored far too long and have been allowed to become cesspools of violence which only filters out to the suburbs. Some don't get that.
I have what might be a stupid question: What's the difference between a government "Office" and a "Department"?
I love it, and finally a "czar" post coming from someone who actually has some experience on the subject. Its not a drug czar whos experience is a bottle of valium in the drug chest or a homeland security czar who has a gate around his house.
The southside is as rough an urban hood as any other in the US.
So what are the "urban" issues that are impacted significantly by Federal Funding/Regulations?
I mean i think transit/infrastructure clearly.
Crime really seems like a state/local thing except for the whole "war on drugs".
Education is similarly largely local outside of NCLB which omst people would say has been a failure...
I could think of some other things, maybe smart growth iniatives or something, but really I'm wondering what types of things might an urban policy czar do?
I'd like to see discussion on some sort of a Fedaral Tax break to offset the ridiculously high taxes most city dwellers pay vs. their suburban neighbors. Again to encourage smart growth/discourage the sprawl etc...
The difference between an Office and a Department may, unfortunately, be that a Department has staff, a budget, and power. Most federal Departments (headed by Cabinet secretaries) have hundreds of thousands of employees. An office could have a couple hundred, or as few as, well, a few -- adding another layer of bureaucracy and/or a few meaningless advisors.
Or, the office could be a center of power coming up with creative policies to help urban and metropolitan areas, policies which Obama and the rest of his administration really get behind and push through Congress.
Could go either way. I don't think the creation of the office itself is a cause for celebration.
TNC your fear is exactly right... "big bureaucratic clusterfuck"
I agree with G - more bureaucracy is not the answer, and I'm willing to bet that a huge percentage of federal spending (transportation, block grants, welfare and other social programs) get eaten up by urban areas in the first place.
I'm a lifelong city dweller, but this just sounds like a promise to throw more money around, and I'm very doubtful that it's a winning strategy.
We already have a Cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD - you know, the people who make the HUD-1 form you sign when you buy a house?).
This will be just a nice set of offices and a nice bunch of people who get high government pay to sit around and make power point presentations and fly to cities and shake hands with mayors and give talks while staying in nice hotels. Probably also give a bunch of grants to a bunch of college professors to "study urban issues."
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan already pointed out why cities have gone to shit.
Now we need action, not studies done by talkers/writers/salary-collecting do-nothings.