Republicans loudly complain about problems in their neighbor's front yard, while not doing anything about problems in their own yard. Great as a campaigning strategy, not so much for governance.
Hi Pete: A better argument is in California. Looking at the 11 largest cities (four of which Fresno, Anaheim, Bakersfield, and Stockton aren't on the list), the only cities with Republican mayors (Bakersfield, Fresno, and Stockton) have by far the highest murder rates (10.2, 11, and 15 per 100,000 residents, respectively). These are also the cities with some of the greatest poverty and quality of life challenges in the state. The cities run by democrats, not only all have lower murder rates, but some have among the lowest rates for major cities in the US.
I was thinking about this issue in another way last week, but thinking about the governance in small towns, which tend overwhelmingly to be run by Republican mayors. The conditions in some of the towns I work with is shocking. In one - literally every building on its historic main street business block has been either demolished or in some state of collapse.
But I don't blame these mayors either as most of the problems they experience, as is true for the major Democrat led cities, generally aren't attributable to factors in their control (i.e., deindustrialization, opioid epidemic, etc.).
Another reader emailed me directly to bring up another counterargument. They mentioned the severe fiscal challenges in Democratic-run cities, starting with Chicago. That's a warranted critique. But I also think it's due to factors out of local control (declining tax bases, rising cost for social services, etc.) and stem from inaction from the state and federal levels.
While I agree there may be a governance problem in many of the elite coastal progressive cities related to homelessness, general law enforcement and housing, I don’t know that I’ve seen any serious or effective conservative solutions to any major urban challenge with the possible exception of public schools and the charter school movement. I could wrong. If you or other readers have examples please share.
My sense is that the “conservative” movement of today is about scoring points and gaining or maintaining power vs any serious urban policy initiatives or desire to solve urban challenges problems. I can think of 5 or 6 examples of policies or programs implemented in the city of Milwaukee that are likely among the top 5 of any urban area in the US (green storm water infrastructure, municipal brownfields redevelopment program, use of BIDs, wastewater treatment, drinking water supply, urban river restoration, etc). But you will probably never see these (or innovative solutions to dozens of other urban challenges by other cities) acknowledged in conservative circles.
The narratives regarding schools and crime make an interesting example. I have the perspective of having helped try to launch two charter schools in Milwaukee but also being married to a public school teacher with a class of 34 underprivileged 2nd graders without an assistant and a third of whom have some type of learning or other disability. She (and many of her coworkers) are American hero’s in my opinion but former Governor Walker had not problem demonizing her and other public school teachers, eliminating their union, resulting in most (at least in Milwaukee) receiving essentially no wage increases for about a 7 year period. Imagine if all of the problems and failures of crime in urban areas was blamed on police officers and police unions, their unions were outlawed, and they received no pay raises for 7 years. While there is some blame they should share (as is true for some teachers and teacher unions as well) those politicizing these urban challenges aren’t likely to offer any useful solutions.
Cities are a problem. Some have homicide problems. Your article suggests to my mind that nobody, and I mean nobody has an understanding of the problem. It seems to say that it doesn't matter which party holds the mayor's office, the county commission, the state government, or the Federal government. If that is true, then we need some new ideas.
Perhaps a chronological graph of homicides for these cities over time showing which party held the mayor's office, or which policies were prominent. New York City comes to mind thinking of LaGuardia, Wagner, Guliani, di Blasio and others.
And when I say cities are problems, I don't just think in terms of homicides. We lived in a suburb of Portland OR for 40 years and worked in the city for most of that time. We watched as the state government went from primarily Republican (except Wayne Morse) to Democrat to Progressive Democrat. The privately owned Blue buses I rode on were replaced by TriMet with a multi-county charter. As the city grew, access by road was choked off in favor of light rail. One day the Oregonian had an editorial regarding some city problem with something like 10 ideas for solving the issue. Every one of them involved only government action. Zoning was used to contain "sprawl", which greatly increased housing prices (along with Californians migrating with much more money to spend that native Oregonians).
I don't have an answer to the problems of cities. In retirement we moved back to Montana's city of Bozeman where we went to undergraduate school. In the last fifteen years the Gallatin county commission has changed from three Republicans to three Democrats. The city of ~60,000 and county of ~ 100,000 are heavily influenced by Montana State University with ~17,000 students and a liberal faculty. Our majority voted Democratic this month, along with Billings, Butte, and Missoula, even though our State is heavily Republican. Both city and county decry "sprawl", want density, public water and sewer for development. In other words, we may be small, but the pattern seems the same as the cities you report and our "lived experience" (a tautology or "pleonasm" if you will).
At the Federal level I favor giving power and money back to the States, i.e. Federalism as we now have with the issue of abortion. And not just in block grants which move neither. I guess at State level, especially in states dominated by one or a few large cities such as Portland in Oregon I would favor giving power and money back to US House Districts???, or to Counties???, and maybe from Counties back to what...voting precincts???, school districts???, Home Owner's Associations???...I don't know. My theme is to move money and political power closer and closer to families and individuals, so they feel more personal responsibility for decision making and results. An all-powerful central planning government in Washington DC is no answer. That is where we have Congressional gridlock and tyranny by Bureaucrats such as Collins/Fauci/Walensky during Covid.
Hi Pete: A better argument is in California. Looking at the 11 largest cities (four of which Fresno, Anaheim, Bakersfield, and Stockton aren't on the list), the only cities with Republican mayors (Bakersfield, Fresno, and Stockton) have by far the highest murder rates (10.2, 11, and 15 per 100,000 residents, respectively). These are also the cities with some of the greatest poverty and quality of life challenges in the state. The cities run by democrats, not only all have lower murder rates, but some have among the lowest rates for major cities in the US.
I was thinking about this issue in another way last week, but thinking about the governance in small towns, which tend overwhelmingly to be run by Republican mayors. The conditions in some of the towns I work with is shocking. In one - literally every building on its historic main street business block has been either demolished or in some state of collapse.
But I don't blame these mayors either as most of the problems they experience, as is true for the major Democrat led cities, generally aren't attributable to factors in their control (i.e., deindustrialization, opioid epidemic, etc.).
Another reader emailed me directly to bring up another counterargument. They mentioned the severe fiscal challenges in Democratic-run cities, starting with Chicago. That's a warranted critique. But I also think it's due to factors out of local control (declining tax bases, rising cost for social services, etc.) and stem from inaction from the state and federal levels.
While I agree there may be a governance problem in many of the elite coastal progressive cities related to homelessness, general law enforcement and housing, I don’t know that I’ve seen any serious or effective conservative solutions to any major urban challenge with the possible exception of public schools and the charter school movement. I could wrong. If you or other readers have examples please share.
My sense is that the “conservative” movement of today is about scoring points and gaining or maintaining power vs any serious urban policy initiatives or desire to solve urban challenges problems. I can think of 5 or 6 examples of policies or programs implemented in the city of Milwaukee that are likely among the top 5 of any urban area in the US (green storm water infrastructure, municipal brownfields redevelopment program, use of BIDs, wastewater treatment, drinking water supply, urban river restoration, etc). But you will probably never see these (or innovative solutions to dozens of other urban challenges by other cities) acknowledged in conservative circles.
The narratives regarding schools and crime make an interesting example. I have the perspective of having helped try to launch two charter schools in Milwaukee but also being married to a public school teacher with a class of 34 underprivileged 2nd graders without an assistant and a third of whom have some type of learning or other disability. She (and many of her coworkers) are American hero’s in my opinion but former Governor Walker had not problem demonizing her and other public school teachers, eliminating their union, resulting in most (at least in Milwaukee) receiving essentially no wage increases for about a 7 year period. Imagine if all of the problems and failures of crime in urban areas was blamed on police officers and police unions, their unions were outlawed, and they received no pay raises for 7 years. While there is some blame they should share (as is true for some teachers and teacher unions as well) those politicizing these urban challenges aren’t likely to offer any useful solutions.
Cities are a problem. Some have homicide problems. Your article suggests to my mind that nobody, and I mean nobody has an understanding of the problem. It seems to say that it doesn't matter which party holds the mayor's office, the county commission, the state government, or the Federal government. If that is true, then we need some new ideas.
Perhaps a chronological graph of homicides for these cities over time showing which party held the mayor's office, or which policies were prominent. New York City comes to mind thinking of LaGuardia, Wagner, Guliani, di Blasio and others.
And when I say cities are problems, I don't just think in terms of homicides. We lived in a suburb of Portland OR for 40 years and worked in the city for most of that time. We watched as the state government went from primarily Republican (except Wayne Morse) to Democrat to Progressive Democrat. The privately owned Blue buses I rode on were replaced by TriMet with a multi-county charter. As the city grew, access by road was choked off in favor of light rail. One day the Oregonian had an editorial regarding some city problem with something like 10 ideas for solving the issue. Every one of them involved only government action. Zoning was used to contain "sprawl", which greatly increased housing prices (along with Californians migrating with much more money to spend that native Oregonians).
I don't have an answer to the problems of cities. In retirement we moved back to Montana's city of Bozeman where we went to undergraduate school. In the last fifteen years the Gallatin county commission has changed from three Republicans to three Democrats. The city of ~60,000 and county of ~ 100,000 are heavily influenced by Montana State University with ~17,000 students and a liberal faculty. Our majority voted Democratic this month, along with Billings, Butte, and Missoula, even though our State is heavily Republican. Both city and county decry "sprawl", want density, public water and sewer for development. In other words, we may be small, but the pattern seems the same as the cities you report and our "lived experience" (a tautology or "pleonasm" if you will).
At the Federal level I favor giving power and money back to the States, i.e. Federalism as we now have with the issue of abortion. And not just in block grants which move neither. I guess at State level, especially in states dominated by one or a few large cities such as Portland in Oregon I would favor giving power and money back to US House Districts???, or to Counties???, and maybe from Counties back to what...voting precincts???, school districts???, Home Owner's Associations???...I don't know. My theme is to move money and political power closer and closer to families and individuals, so they feel more personal responsibility for decision making and results. An all-powerful central planning government in Washington DC is no answer. That is where we have Congressional gridlock and tyranny by Bureaucrats such as Collins/Fauci/Walensky during Covid.