Brian Doherty | February 20, 2007
The November issue of Governing has a very interesting article by Christopher Swope--and I note it not because of the libertarian bonafides of either the magazine, which has none, or of the article in and of itself--about how governments like that of Youngstown, Ohio, are coping with the fact that everyone with any sense is running like hell out of town.
It involves giving up on some traditional government programs like low-income housing tax credits and subsidies--as Youngstown Mayor Jay Williams said, "A brand-new house constructed between two houses that need to be demolished — we’re not doing anybody a favor"--in favor of some new ones, like spending lots of local government bucks on demolishing abandoned properties. Also, some taking advantage of federal mandates such as those that require developers to create new wetlands for old wetlands their development destroys--Youngstown is full of land just begging to be turned back into swamp, and thanks to government mandates, that can be worth gold to developers.
The summation of the problem that many governments of smaller (and getting even smaller) industrial cities in the midwest are facing:
Instead of accepting decline and trying to manage it in a deliberate way, mayors tend to gravitate toward revitalization plans that involve building convention centers and sports arenas and subsidizing hotels and shopping malls. They also get into desperate fights with the Census Bureau over population estimates and counting methodology. “How many politicians in America will stand on a soapbox and say, ’I’m going to lead this city and we’re going to shrink it?’ ” asks Joseph Schilling, a professor at Virginia Tech’s Metropolitan Institute.
The point of the story is: a lot of them are going to have to. As a study of how bureaucrats try to adjust to changing circumstances, well worth a read.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I think the abandonment of small towns for bigger cities is a net positive. Sure, the details are painful, but big cities are better when they're dense, and fewer disparate small towns means less human encroachment on wildlife.
I've been advocating government demolition for years. Rather than spend the money trying to save it - knock the shit down.
mayors tend to gravitate toward revitalization plans that
involve building convention centers and sports arenas and
subsidizing hotels and shopping malls
*coughcoughHouseofBluescoughcoughBrownsStadiumcoughcough*
"Instead of accepting decline and trying to manage it
in a deliberate way"
Here's the crux of the problem for libertarians. Youngstown needs
fewer planners and more folks who can actually generate employment.
Those Ohio winters are going to be a real problem for trying to
bring such a place back to life, however.
However, I see nothing wrong with the city demolishing old
abandoned structures on land that is no longer in private ownership
due to abandonment and unpaid taxes. And the city has no obligation
to provide isolated residents with sewerage or water, as long as it
no longer taxes residents for providing such services to
others.
So now, instead of trying to sell us swamp land the government wants us to build swamp land?
Ohio is one of those places like Nebraska or North Dakota where
maybe it just doesn't make a lot of sense for large numbers of
people to live here. Turn it into a nature preserve or
something.
Columbus is the one city that seems to have some success
integrating into the modern economy.
Columbus is the one city that seems to have some success
integrating into the modern economy.
Columbus is a hole, propped up by the fact that the government is
housed there.
Well yeah, but we're talking relatively here. Have you ever driven around the place? It's like a mini-Chicago. Cf Dayton, which seems to think it just has to hold on until GM and Delphi bounce back. I think they need to declare a few blocks downtown an indian reservation and build a casino.
TP's G-
A few years ago, my family was trying to sell my grandmother's home
in Cleveland, and my father realized quite early on that the
absolute best thing to do was to knock it down and sell the
property - the house was built in 1908, after my grandmother's
death in 1990 it had rapidly fallen apart, the wiring was
horrifyingly substandard (think 1/8" copper wire with CLOTH
insulation)and rapidly deteriorating structural safety. The city,
however, was adamant that under no circumstances would they alow a
demolition permit, and my father never did get an intelligent
answer why. They would allow whoever bought it to completely
rebuild the place and bring it up to code (and the best estimates
on THAT were considerably more than what tearing it down and
building a new single family residence would cost), but it would
have to be the original home.
A little research told us that this is not an unusual situation -
most major cities are absolutely unwilling to allow a residential
property owner to tear down their property unless it has gotten to
the point where people walking past it are in imminent danger from
the place falling over and sliding into the street. (This includes
urban nightmares like Detroit and St Louis)As nearly as we were
ever able to tell, the only real argument the city has is that in
many cases, the city is still collecting taxes on the property, and
that the number of houses - inhabited or abandoned - affects
federal money coming to the city.
Mike
Kansas City, Missouri has been trying to spend itself into
prosperity for years. The government there is in love with stadiums
and the like. They even built a nice new one without a parking lot.
Or a team to play there. Of course, their initiatives fail
miserably.
OTOH, Kansas City, Kansas has encountered some success by bringing
in a NASCAR track and a large Cabellas (store that sells outdoor
stuff). I suspect that KCK is the exception rather than the rule,
though.
As nearly as we were ever able to tell, the only real
argument the city has is that in many cases, the city is still
collecting taxes on the property, and that the number of houses -
inhabited or abandoned - affects federal money coming to the
city.
Why do you think Nagin won't allow dozers to clear New Orleans? Or
why he won't admit that they've got about 45% of their prior
population?
It once made a lot of sense for tons of people to live in Ohio -
especially with all the manufacturing jobs there. Steel, rubber,
oil, automotives, meat packing and many others were HUGE employers
in Ohio. Random Fact: Ohio makes more cars (and manufactures more
parts) than any other state by a long shot.
But you can corrolate the declining health of Ohio's biggest cities
with the rise of unionization in them. Toledo, Youngstown,
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Akron, Sandusky, and to a lesser extent
Dayton have all experienced dramatic LOSSES in population since the
fifties when the population of the US has doubled. All of these
cities are unhealthy and yes, many of them are doing the Downtown
stadium thing (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton), but it can't
save them in the end, because there still aren't that many jobs in
them.
Walk around downtown Toledo if you want to see a city that is dying
and won't admit it. The place is a ghost town with skyscrapers.
It's not pretty. It's not fun to be a politician in these cities,
I'm sure. I think its a move in the right direction to say - hey,
we need to contract a bit.
"...mayors tend to gravitate toward [grandiose] revitalization
plans that involve building convention centers and sports arenas
and subsidizing hotels and shopping malls."
Welcome to Indianapolis.
Columbus is the one city that seems to have some success
integrating into the modern economy.
Akron has been doing quite nicely. I have a feeling this city is
really going to boom once the Akron
Biomedical Corridor starts up.
Akron has been doing quite nicely. I have a feeling this city is really going to boom once the Akron Biomedical Corridor starts up.
I hope so. Akron is a nice place. I grew up in Cuyahoga Falls, and
I went back to visit a few years ago. If I were to end up there, I
wouldn't be too sad. It's not likely to happen, but Akron's not a
bad place at all.
smacky,
The House of Blues was subsidized? I thought it seemed way too
fancy when I saw some metal bands there a few months back. I mean,
Mastodon should only play in disreputable holes like Peabody's and
the Grog Shop.
Sir Disgrace,
Yup. It was subsidized as part of the attempted Euclid Corridor
restoration. The awful thing about it (apart from seeing metal
bands at a venue that sells overpriced beer in plastic bottles) is
that once they are done with Cleveland (which shouldn't be long,
considering most of the acts they book now are cover
bands), they will pack up their stuff and go to a city with
more people and more money (and they will still probably be booking
the same uninteresting garbage acts)-- and they will leave
Cleveland stuck with the tab.
And Peabody's...don't get me started on Peabody's. True, they are a
local establishment, but who really wants to see 10 local bands
before seeing any one of the touring national acts on a given
bill...they are laughably bad. I avoid going there whenever
possible now. Other people feel the same. When the question of
venue comes up and my friends are debating whether to see a show,
whether it is at Peabody's or House of Blues is an important
consideration and often a deciding factor in skipping a given
concert.
Now the Beachland Ballroom is a great Cleveland Venue. So is the
Grog Shop.
Foxhunter and grylliade -
Cleveland and Akron have recovered quite nicely in the last decade
or so, and I love going back home to see them. Cleveland especially
was able to resist the urge to tax their way back to prosperity -
downtown is alive and vibrant, and the last time I saw Akron it was
headed the same way. In Cleveland especially you have thriving
residential areas close to or in Downtown (I'm especially thinking
of Slavic Village, where I grew up)and when people live in those
places the businesses that make life easier move in right behind
them. Would that Toledo could say the same - downtown there looked
like something out of 'The Omega Man', empty buildings that just
got locked up 30 years ago (I'm thinking especially of the old
Tiedke's Department Store complex, which was a couple of full sized
city blocks in the middle of town) and left there. Toledo tried the
'silver bullet' with SeaGate but without retail businesses offices
and hotels can't do squat to save a downtown. Cleveland figured
that out with Tower City and the Galleria though you can make an
argument that it was more luck than planning.
Mike Kozlowski
Last time I went to Peabody's, they inflicted no local acts on
me. I somehow suspect that you go to see different acts than me,
though. Less violent ones.
The Beachland is sweet. The Grog is my favorite venue on earth, but
they tend to book too many pretentious indie rockers there for my
taste. I'll go see William Elliot Whitmore there in a few weeks,
though.
Don't forget the Agora. That place r0x0r5 your 50x0r5.
Sir Disgrace,
I just wanted to add that the other awful thing about HOB is that
they outbid national acts right out from under competing local
clubs' bids because they are able to offer more money (taxpayer
subsidized, of course) to potential touring acts. Then, inevitably,
the touring acts are disappointed when attendence at their HOB show
is low, because of the high ticket prices that House of Blues is
asking and that most Clevelanders simply won't pay.
The HOB has a mural about how Mad Anthony Wayne ate Indian babies and stuff. I am now outraged! outraged I say! that my tax dollars went to defame such a notable badass of history.
Bhh,
I was raised in Nebraska and then moved to Ohio, so I feel
qualified to object to your lumping of the two. Large numbers of
people do live in Ohio, at least when compared to Nebraska (11.5
vs. 1.7 million). For starters, Ohio has three metropolitan areas
that approach the population of the whole state of Nebraska. Ohio
has hardly any areas that would be considered rural in the sense
that the word is used in Nebraska once you get more than an hour
from the Missouri River. Also, Nebraska didn't suffer from
de-industrialization since it never had much non-farm
industry.
MH
There are rural areas, but they're way out in the west or in the
southeast, in the Appalachian foothills.
NE Ohio is a pretty big conurbation of balkanized madness, and
there's a damn lot of people in a pretty small area.
Columbus is the only city except Akron that has fully come to terms
with the modern post-industrial economy. Columbus has the advantage
of never really having had an industrial past, though. Shitload of
finance, insurance and research. It's often been described as a
mini Chicago.
Akron has its issues, and The Don is both good and bad in a
libertarian sense, but at least the city is making mostly SMART
decisions about how to transition away from rubber.
Cleveland (Canton, Massillon), sad to say, hasn't come to terms
with steel leaving. That politicians like Kucinich can continue to
dupe people into thinking the $30/hr. union jobs are coming back
simply amazes me. I like Cleveland, but it's little more than a
cool place to visit. Judging by the fact that almost twice as many
people live in non-Cleveland Cuyahoga County than in Cleveland
proper, I'd say lots agree.
grylliade, when you grew up in the Falls, was it pre- or post-Rex's
Erection on State? I'm living there now, but thankfully down on the
other side of Chapel Hill, so I'm shielded by a big hill and trees
from that monstrosity.
I will add that it's a bit of a pain in the ass to live in the state's only charter county. As if there weren't enough local governments, there's a county executive on top of it. Hooray.
With a couple exceptions, the success or failure of an American
city boils down almost entirely to two things: how well it
accommodates the automobile, and how warm its winters are.
Surviving in suburbia and in the desert are of course both entirely
dependent on cheap oil. If that disappears, places that
deliberately "shrink" are going to be just as fucked as the rest of
suburban America. Bad idea.
By the way, New York City was told to pursue "managed shrinkage" in
the 70s, by the same sort of smartypants as this guy -- shortly
before beginning a dramatic increase to its current population, its
highest ever.
Serendipitously, Archinect has just published a photo tour of
Midwestern cities in decline:
http://tinyurl.com/3c8qk3
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245