If the country was run by mayors…

The transportation bill that just passed the Senate is mostly about keeping current funding flowing to our highway and transit systems, but there are a few twists. One of the lesser-known components of the bill is a change whereby the states get to keep more of the most flexible transportation funding they receive and share fewer of these dollars with local areas in their state. Akin to the popular and well-established Community Development Block Grant Program and its "entitlement communities,” the federal surface transportation law has passed through 62.5 percent of all STP funding to local areas since 1991, with urbanized areas of 200,000 or more people receiving their population share of these funds by formula. Nearly 200 such areas throughout the nation – our biggest metropolitan economies that produce most of the nation’s goods and services – will receive a smaller share of these transportation “block grant” resources under what the Senate bill calls the Transportation Mobility Program, a renaming of the Surface Transportation Program. To most people, this change doesn’t seem like much, but to local areas, it means that their local decision-makers will now control an even smaller share of the funds that the federal government sends back to us. And, there is growing evidence that local decision-makers are getting more bang for their buck than state transportation bureaucrats, given the success local officials are having in developing alternative transportation systems, encouraging more efficient development near transit stations and motivating local taxpayers to support higher fees and taxes for these improvements, as other levels of government run from raising additional taxes.

And, we see that state governments are growing more confrontational and political, as local decision-makers continue to prove themselves to be effective and responsive in promoting community development and other objectives. Local officials simply don’t have the time or inclination to indulge the fervor and ideology that now plagues our political debates. Certainly, their close proximity to the public and their problems forces them to act and find solutions, which I believe today makes them the dominant actors in our political system. These achievements stem from their desire to affect change for their people and communities, as opposed to advancing a political agenda. 

A recent commercial during the Super Bowl by The Mayors Coalition Against Illegal Guns made this point clearly. Two mayors, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg and Boston’s Mayor Menino, are from different parties, different regions and in many ways are competitors with each other for new jobs and business investment. Yet, here they are united by their shared goal of improving the safety of their communities, advocating for modest but important improvements in federal gun safety laws. Their message promoted by the organization does not derive from a political agenda or party platform, and does not indulge the usual 2^nd amendment, constitutional debate. These are simply mayors confronting problems hurting their people and their communities and seeking reasonable remedies to alleviate it. This is one of many examples where mayors and other local elected officials have come together to protect and improve their cities.

The rationality of these politicians makes them the best stewards for our country. If mayors and other local officials were handed the political reigns of this country—it is certain we would be much better off. In contrast, our federal and state governments seem most interested in passing the buck down to local officials, cutting resources but passing along more responsibilities to localities.

Why does federal policy look the other way on the performance of our state governments and continue to send money to them and pretend they are solving problems? The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided large sums of money to state governments to create jobs and stimulate the economy. As a recent Albemarle County official told me and others in a session on the impacts of ARRA funding, it was reported that the Commonwealth of Virginia held most of their ARRA funds they received from the federal government. In enacting these funds, Congress again assumed or believed that the states would pass these dollars down to worthy projects in local communities. As it turns out, the only ARRA money the County of Albemarle received was from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, because its formula directed dollars directly to cities and counties, much like CDBG funding is allocated.

Given all we know about losing funding inside the state’s treasury and inside its agencies, isn’t it time to simply direct more federal funds to cities, counties and their local areas so we can all benefit from smart local decisions investing in our future?  The uncertainty about the redistribution of funds through the state is convincing more of the public that nothing comes from the expenditure of federal resources on these programs. Let’s start by making sure the final federal transportation bill restores local area funding so more dollars and more investment decisions will be made locally. 

Guest Contributor: Kate McCarty

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.01813:

http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/2012/0306-letter-transportation.pdf

 

 

 

Comments

[Megan Liddle Gude]

Kate, what an excellent article! I agree that the lack of mandated local funding in the new Transportation Bill is concerning. You make a strong case when you point out that cities are the engine of economic growth (and tax dollars) in our economy. Shouldn’t we be investing in ways to help them succeed?

The piece that is missing here is that cities are not economic islands. Part of the reason that cities succeed is because they are part of thriving regions and are connected to other cities with businesses, talent, and resources. The regional and economic infrastructure that connects cities is just as much a part of local success. So while investment in transportation within cities is important, investment in the transportation between them matters too.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to support thriving cities with adequate transportation infrastructure, and infrastructure that goes way beyond more roads for more cars. The transportation needs of a city are just not the same as the transportation needs of last generation’s suburbs. And we need to recognize that!

Since our country collects tax revenues at the federal level, the federal government does has a role to play in making sure there are funds for city transportation.

Does this have to happen by mandate?

I think that one of the strengths of our system of government is that states can innovate different programs that are appropriate to their situation. When things work exceptionally well, other states cam emulate those policies or the federal government can craft national policy to replicate the successes. But local determinism is part of making this system work. More federal mandates may hinder more than they help, and in the current political climate they might not pass muster.

States also need to be able to balance allocation of resources according to the needs and demands of their own constituencies.

Maybe one answer to this would be setting federal guidelines for the percentages of state transportation money that are spent on urban and regional infrastructure, or on the kind of infrastructure. Give states the freedom to make the infrastructure investments they know that they need, but encourage forward-thinking investment in city infrastructure by granting bonus funds or other incentives to states that invest, say, at least 20% of state transportation funds in urban areas and regional mass transportation systems.

What do you think? Could this work?

[Rehema Wachira]

I agree with Kate's argument that the role of mayors as the first-line service providers and their proximity to the people they serve make them more accountable and therefore better able to address the concerns of their constituents. Her assertion that some mayors are meeting with better success around the contentious issue of raising taxes to support important development projects is very interesting given the current political climate. Whether it be indirectly through agreements forged between local government and community spokespeople to convince city residents one way or the other, or by offering them alternative benefits, further examination of how these mayors have been able to achieve this would be very interesting to read.

The discussion of the pragmatic (as opposed to political) approach that mayors tend to take raises important questions for the increasingly factionalized nature of national politics. Thomas Friedman's article "Down With Everything" that describes the "vetocracy" that has emerged from the American government structure of check and balances is very relevant in this case. If the decision makers at the national level are unable to take decisive action, then perhaps the solution is, as Kate suggests, to focus that decision-making power in the hands of local governments whose primary agenda is solving current problems, and not with setting political agendas.

However, a reorganization of the decision-making structure that gives mayors more power could potentially result in the same bureaucratic indecisiveness that characterizes the national playing field. Perhaps another reason why local government is more effective is because it is free of some of the national-level responsibilities and politicking. As Megan has pointed out, local government can implement projects on their relevant scale, and when they work they can be adopted in other cities and even transformed into national programs. The federal government still plays an important role here and local governments also benefit from the vertical accountability. The challenge lies in modifying the relationship between the national and local government such that it is less confrontational as Kate describes, and the financing terms are better defined as Megan suggests to give local government more control over their budgets while still maintaining cooperative approaches to solving development problems.

[tee shirt pas cher]

I agree with Kate's argument that the role of mayors as the first-line service providers and their proximity to the people they serve make them more accountable and therefore better able to address the concerns of their constituents.

[celine luggage]

Votre écriture-up est très bon, l'étude de votre article, permettez-moi avantager beaucoup, je crois que je vais voulons absolument superbe étude de votre article.
Ce site internet est sérieusement bonne, souhaitent déterminer beaucoup plus si merveilleux écriture jusqu'à

[High School Diploma]

I appreciate your help. You really helped me.

[casquette new era]

Persönlich gratulieren diesen Kommentar durch den Urheber oder Schöpfer dieser Artikel so interessant ist genau was ich wollte, ich danke Ihnen sehr für das Schreiben und Publizieren. Ich habe viele verschiedene Artikel zu lesen. aber wie seine Artikel, und wir hoffen, dass Sie mehr und besser zu schreiben. Ich rate ihnen, um sie, dank lesen

[mbt chaussures]

Sehr froh, einen Blog, dank so viele interessante Dinge zu Aktien sehen. Ich hoffe, dass in Zukunft können Sie die Publikation interessanter Tag!

[vente lunettes de soleil]

ils servent les rendre plus responsables et donc mieux à même de répondre aux préoccupations de leurs électeurs.

[air max tn pas cher]

Das meiste, was Sie darauf hinweisen, ist erstaunlich legitim und das macht mich frage mich, warum ich nicht an diese mit diesem Licht sah zuvor. Ihr Artikel hat wirklich das Licht an für mich persönlich so weit wie diese spezifische Thematik geht. Aber zu diesem Zeitpunkt gibt es eigentlich eine bestimmte Position bin ich nicht allzu bequem mit, und während ich versuche, in Einklang zu bringen, dass mit dem Kernthema der Position, lassen Sie mich sehen, was der ganze Rest von Ihren Lesern say.Nicely getan haben.

[survetement adidas]

Obwohl ich hätte es vorgezogen, wenn Sie in ein kleines bisschen näher gegangen bin, habe ich immer noch den Kern dessen, was du meintest. Ich stimme dem zu. Es ist vielleicht nicht eine populäre Idee sein, aber es macht Sinn. Werden auf jeden Fall wieder für mehr dafür. Große work.Good Arbeit, wunderbare blog ... genieße es wirklich, und fügte hinzu, sie in meine Social Bookmarks. Machen Sie weiter so gute Arbeit

[escrowit.com]

We will only provide your details to one regulated advisor.

[AQIS washing]

I agree with you Kate!

[ralph lauren tee shirt]

Ich stimme voll und ganz, dass wir zu blühenden Städten mit ausreichenden Verkehrsinfrastruktur und Infrastruktur, die weit über mehr Straßen für mehr Autos geht unterstützen müssen. Die Transport-Bedürfnisse einer Stadt sind einfach nicht die gleichen wie die Transport-Bedürfnisse der letzten Generation der Vorstädte. Und wir müssen erkennen, dass!

[tee shirt polo]

Hej! Vet du om de gör några plugins för att skydda mot hackare? Jag är ganska paranoid om att förlora allt jag har jobbat hårt på. Några rekommendationer? Hej, jag hittade din blogg via Google när han letade efter ett relaterat ämne kom din webbplats upp, ser det bra. Jag har bokmärkt den i mina bokmärken.

Även om jag skulle ha föredragit om du gick in lite mer i detalj, fick jag fortfarande kärnan av vad du menade. Jag håller med det. Det kanske inte är en populär idé, men det är vettigt. Kommer definitivt att komma tillbaka för mer av detta. Stor work.Good arbete, underbar blogg ... Gillar det verkligen och lagt till det i mina sociala bokmärken. Fortsätt med det goda arbetet

[sac a main hermes]

Bok! Volio svoje čitajući vaše blogove. Velika energija! Upravo sam počeo blogging sebe i vas je dodao u mom popisu. Nadam se da će check out moj blog kad! Može Držite se dobro djelo!

[sac longchamps]

Save On Women's Pants Shop Women's Pants, Capris, Shorts & More. Buy at One Hanes Place. sac longchamps http://www.pop-wine.fr/flash/index.html