Comments on: An Era of Federal Opportunity for Cities and Regions? http://citiwire.net/post/1712/ Our mission... to reflect a new narrative for 21st century cities and regions. Leaving behind the 20th century pattern of cheap energy, endless automobility, burgeoning suburbs, threatened inner cities. To a challenge-packed 21st century: energy prices headed north, perilous carbon emissions, deepening have-have not divisions, excruciating social problems and deep challenges in education. But a time of exciting promise, too. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:15:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Patricia H. Gay http://citiwire.net/post/1712/comment-page-1/#comment-1143 Patricia H. Gay Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:08:59 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1712#comment-1143 There is a critical omission that would compliment all of the programs mentioned - preservation programs, which generate more jobs per dollar and have the most impressive ripple effect of any other public program. Because every house or building cannot be subsidized it is essential to plan for a ripple effect; every stimulus dollar spent should be evaluated in terms of leveraging private investment. Unless there is a strong preservation/market-rate component, in general affordable housing programs do not have an impressive ripple effect, in spite of claims to the opposite. Preservation programs and strategies do, with a positive impact for all income levels. Even public dollars spent on schools should have a preservation component. It is of great distress that the highly successful preservation programs that generate more jobs per dollar and have an impressive ripple effect have not been included in stimulus strategies. To repeat, preservation programs would compliment other efforts mentioned in this article. Without them, we will simply need to provide more public dollars to keep them going. The tremendous potential of programs such as Main Street, state homeowner rehab income tax credits (we need a federal one), private and public local neighborhood preservation strategies, and other heritage programs efforts have been overlooked or eliminated. Other countries have included such programs, with good effect. The US did in the 1980's recession. We will delve into programs mentioned, of course, and (unsupported) preservation efforts will no doubt have something to do with their success. It is most unfortunate that preservation programs have been specifically left out - they need to be supported and expanded. The entire country would benefit by utilizing the potential of these programs, so successful since the National Preservation Act of 1966. This is an unfortunate ommission if we are serious about stimulating our economy. There is a critical omission that would compliment all of the programs mentioned – preservation programs, which generate more jobs per dollar and have the most impressive ripple effect of any other public program. Because every house or building cannot be subsidized it is essential to plan for a ripple effect; every stimulus dollar spent should be evaluated in terms of leveraging private investment. Unless there is a strong preservation/market-rate component, in general affordable housing programs do not have an impressive ripple effect, in spite of claims to the opposite. Preservation programs and strategies do, with a positive impact for all income levels. Even public dollars spent on schools should have a preservation component. It is of great distress that the highly successful preservation programs that generate more jobs per dollar and have an impressive ripple effect have not been included in stimulus strategies. To repeat, preservation programs would compliment other efforts mentioned in this article. Without them, we will simply need to provide more public dollars to keep them going. The tremendous potential of programs such as Main Street, state homeowner rehab income tax credits (we need a federal one), private and public local neighborhood preservation strategies, and other heritage programs efforts have been overlooked or eliminated. Other countries have included such programs, with good effect. The US did in the 1980′s recession. We will delve into programs mentioned, of course, and (unsupported) preservation efforts will no doubt have something to do with their success. It is most unfortunate that preservation programs have been specifically left out – they need to be supported and expanded. The entire country would benefit by utilizing the potential of these programs, so successful since the National Preservation Act of 1966. This is an unfortunate ommission if we are serious about stimulating our economy.

]]> By: Neal Peirce http://citiwire.net/post/1712/comment-page-1/#comment-1139 Neal Peirce Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:02:57 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1712#comment-1139 Message received from Jonathan Rose, illustrious “green” developer and sustainability advocate: These two columns (Peirce and Flint) are great companion stories. We are dealing with two kinds of cities. There are the proactive ones, which want to take full advantage of these programs and become more competitive. And there are the cities and counties in which tea party candidates win, who believe that planning and federal funds are evil, and which will not pursue the strategies and funds you describe. Those cities are about to condemn themselves to being the losers of the future. I think it would be very helpful If you would write something about that choice, so that pro-livability advocates could forward it to their elected officials. In the 1960s , Birmingham, Alabama, and Atlanta, Georgia, had similar populations and economies. One turned inward and segregated. One turned outward and integrated . Forty years later, there is little that Birmingham can do to overtake Atlanta. Their fate was made in 1964. Message received from Jonathan Rose, illustrious “green” developer and sustainability advocate: These two columns (Peirce and Flint) are great companion stories. We are dealing with two kinds of cities. There are the proactive ones, which want to take full advantage of these programs and become more competitive. And there are the cities and counties in which tea party candidates win, who believe that planning and federal funds are evil, and which will not pursue the strategies and funds you describe. Those cities are about to condemn themselves to being the losers of the future. I think it would be very helpful If you would write something about that choice, so that pro-livability advocates could forward it to their elected officials. In the 1960s , Birmingham, Alabama, and Atlanta, Georgia, had similar populations and economies. One turned inward and segregated. One turned outward and integrated . Forty years later, there is little that Birmingham can do to overtake Atlanta. Their fate was made in 1964.

]]> By: Howard J. Wooldridge http://citiwire.net/post/1712/comment-page-1/#comment-1137 Howard J. Wooldridge Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:41:17 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1712#comment-1137 It all sounds so lovely. The fly in the soup is that every penny must be borrowed from China. The feds are simply adding to the national VISA card which is some 12 trillion in the hole. At what time/place in our massive debt load do we force the states to find the money? The States could fund every penny of what you described if they repealed the prohibiiton of marijuana and taxed it (net savings of about 15 billion US Dollars) It all sounds so lovely. The fly in the soup is that every penny must be borrowed from China. The feds are simply adding to the national VISA card which is some 12 trillion in the hole.

At what time/place in our massive debt load do we force the states to find the money?

The States could fund every penny of what you described if they repealed the prohibiiton of marijuana and taxed it (net savings of about 15 billion US Dollars)

]]>