I’ve read with interest two articles this snowy Sunday. The first details recent research which urges ” a back-to-basics strategy: Invest in good schools and public safety, and don’t bet on the trendy stuff” like “casino gaming, programs to attract creative-class workers, the stylish New Urbanism development projects and more.” These, researchers found, while they may have been successful in themselves, “contributed little or nothing to overall regional economic growth.” The authors argue for nuance, and I agree with the article’s conclusion: “Yet researchers … are on to something here. It may not be sexy. And it’s not short term. But in urban economic development, as in life, if you take care of the basics, the frills tend to take care of themselves.” I hope Toledo’s decision makers are paying attention. We need a comprehensive and holistic approach to development. Without basics like clean water and safe (and paved) streets, it’s hard to see how anything else will work.
(The back to basics approach reminds me of Milwaukee’s “sewer socialists” and makes me want think more about the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. I’m not a fan of Sanders as a presidential candidate, but I admire what he was able to accomplish as mayor of Burlington. )
The second article was much less fun to read. It’s painful for me to admit that I agree with much of what Keith Burris has to say about “the “good old boy” network in Toledo government” in this morning’s Blade. Especially this: “This spoils system has always been a part of city politics in America, from Boston to L.A. But the question of competence has not always been so totally irrelevant: Can the persons filling these jobs do them well and serve the public?” When Toledoans voted to adopt a strong-mayor system in 1992 , they chose politics over professionalism. Ironically, that choice was not just supported but driven by Mr. Burris’ employer. As a non-resident of the city, I didn’t have a vote, but even then it was clear to me that the big labor, big business, and our big newspaper all saw this as a chance to gain power, and nothing I’ve seen since the first strong mayor election in 1993 has changed my mind. As one labor leader (no longer in the area) explained it to me, “There’s nothing wrong with the good old boy system as long as you’re one of the good old boys.” Or girls, I suppose.
Burris criticizes Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson for showing “zero capacity for reform and zero interest in professionalizing city government, which we need desperately.” I don’t know enought about the specifics he details to have an opinion, but I do know that she is operating within a system that will make it tough to prioritize competence. I trust that she will try, and I wish her the best of luck in doing it.