Spokane7
61°
June 16, 2009 in Opinion
Cal Thomas: Learning from cities’ decline
There are perhaps dozens of small towns and failing neighborhoods beginning to resemble ghost towns. We’ve all seen them if we get off the Interstate and drive down state or county roads, once-thriving Main Streets or into blighted neighborhoods.
The Obama administration reportedly is considering whether to broaden an experimental “shrink to survive” program in Flint, Mich. – one of the nation’s poorest cities – that proposes to raze districts within some cities and towns while bulldozing others in their entirety. Land would be returned to its pre-construction state. Politicians in Flint believe the city must contract by as much as 40 percent. They want to focus on the population that remains and cut services to save money.
The man behind the plan is Dan Kildee, the treasurer of Genesee County, Mich., which includes Flint. Kildee told President Barack Obama about his vision during last year’s campaign. The government and a group of charities are now asking Kildee to apply what he has learned in Flint to the rest of the country. According to a recent Daily Telegraph story, Kildee says he is looking at 50 cities that were recently identified by the Brookings Institution as potential candidates for shrinking because of their economic and population decline. “Most are former industrial cities in the ‘rust belt. …’ They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.”
“The obsession with growth,” Kildee says, “is sadly a very American thing. Across the U.S. there’s an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.”
In reporting on this story, Tom Leonard, the Daily Telegraph’s American correspondent, says that Detroit, whose economic struggles have been exacerbated by the turmoil in the automobile industry, might be “split into a collection of smaller urban centers separated from each other by countryside.” Kildee is quoted as saying, “The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we’re all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way. Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity.”
This idea ought to have appeal across the political spectrum. Dividing up failing cities and towns into smaller entities and creating grasslands in between them might also reduce crime and urban sprawl, while lessening pollution and gridlock. Downsizing cities and towns could also serve as a model for government. Smaller government would possibly mean less waste, fraud and abuse and more power for citizens.
If the federal government wishes to proceed with this proposal, it could greatly enhance its credibility by starting with itself. How about shrinking the size, cost and reach of the federal government, since many of its components are out of date and in need of “bulldozing”?
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW.org), one of the better organizations in Washington, monitors the ways our tax dollars are misspent. Speaking of Detroit, CAGW notes that the current budget allocates $3.8 million for the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy. How about bulldozing the $1.8 million set aside for swine odor and manure management research in Ames, Iowa? Now there’s a pork project! There’s $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service in Connecticut. (The people near my home who use water taxi service pay for it themselves.)
The shrinking of American cities and towns that are not as vibrant as they once were is potentially a good idea. So is shrinking the size and cost of the federal government. If the bulldozing of outdated and unnecessary federal spending could be linked to the reduction of failing cities and towns, it would be a win-win for distressed taxpayers.
Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.
Don’t fudge fish standard 
eagleproducer on June 16 at 11:05 a.m.
Thanks, Cal!
Only you could turn a story that deals with the tragic decline of certain urban centers into a clarion call for dismantling government and lower taxes.
force_vector on June 16 at 4:57 p.m.
Sorry tucky, but he’s right. Failed urban areas (Spokane included) by definition cost the taxpayers of the state they are located in more than they contribute. Is that not also true for the Federal Government of today? It costs us all a significant portion of our wages and contributes very little in return. I agree with the bulldozer analogy completely. Those that encourage Federal growth are usually the same ones on a soap box preaching sustainability. A quick look in the left-tilted mirror would show the hypocracy of being both for an ideal and against it. Failed urban centers cannot sustain themselves and neither can our bloated government. Unless of course you’d be willing to trade your freedom for its girth.