Fundamental Conflict Between The Ideologies: "What Are The Proper Function Of Cities"?

Courtesy of the "Crew Of 42" Blog, a blog that tracks the activities of the Congressional Black Caucus in the US House.

The Michael Nutter, the Mayor Of Philadelphia testifying before a Congressional panel, lead by the Congressional Black Caucus, which details the impact upon cities in the loss of federal financial support.




Rep Donna Edwards (D-MD) highlights how budget cuts for an individual budget year impacts the ability to do long term capital planning.




What Are The Proper Functions Of Cities (And Local School Boards)?

 If you care to look for them in the archives of this blog - I have several blog entires over the years which debate the proper function of cities.

Before I detail the distinctions that define the divide let me put forth some architectural facts about the construction of our nation's governance.

1. We are a "representative democracy" where legislators are designed to represent our interests
2. There is a necessary balance of power between the states and the federal government
1. The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the US Constitution
2. All powers not specifically allocated to the federal government are a province of the state (Tenth Amendment)
1. Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
3. The balance of our key social services are enumerated in the constitution of the STATES. (from my scan of several state constitutions):
1. Education, Voting Rights & Administration, Insurance Regulation, Public Utilities Commission Regulation, Incorporation, Marriage, Taxation of Property, the ability of government to take property (Eminent Domain) the provision of Public Education
2. The state constitutions define CITIES and SCHOOL SYSTMS  as "franchises" - the power and authority of the state is allocated to these local entities for the sake of more effective delivery of services per the local and customized administration.  
3. The state allows these entities to levy taxes locally in order to pay for these services

There are two major theories at play that often serve as the key point of conflict between Progressives and Conservatives.

• CONSERVATIVES: The provision of a local charter was done so based on the assumption of some measure of fiscal viability was present and sustainable, thus affording the citizens within this district a higher standard of living as their resources are focused upon their own local interests instead of being diluted upon the broader state/county within which they are housed.  The local entity is pushed by the state to govern themselves in a fiscally responsible manner to avoid insolvency.  Just as a bankrupt corporation is dissolved - there must be some measure to remove the charter from a local entity lest they become mere "resource redistribution points" as local politicians are absolved of their complicity
• PROGRESSIVES:  The fact that the state and federal government has distributed their authority for local execution by municipal governments - this does not absolve them of their fiduciary duty to care for the citizens that are contained within their boundaries.  Resource gaps between local franchises should be mitigated using "redistributive policies", centrally focused upon tax policies. 

Beyond pushing my personal preference to have the local entity bound to the notion that "the governance of the local institutions that they control and the policies that they adopt - translate into the quality of life that is expressed" I wish to focus upon the question which asks the following:

"What advantage is there for a local population when their expressed 'standard of living' is far above what their ORGANIC productivity affords to them?"

Living in a wealthy nation like the United States yet confined within a municipal boundary that is poor, it is understandable how frustration and resentment is seen as the people within peer out, looking at the abundance that is present within others.    Yet - as I watch PBS "Frontline" in the background as they show how corruption in Haiti undercuts the nation's ability to to bring forth stability and growth - I am made to wonder IF a "Camden", "Flint" or a number of towns in Appalachia were scooped up and placed within Cap-Haïtien or other places of desperation - would they be able to leverage the organic processes that operate WITHIN their ecosystem to produce an end result that is substantively better than what is present in their new surroundings.

If there is any clearer point of "Feed A Man A Fish And He Eats For A Day........" scenario at hand for debate - I would love to see it.

I do appreciate the fact that there are certain large capital projects, that are built for the common good, which mandate bond financing from the state and federal government.  A $600 million bridge that spans the Delaware River - benefiting residents on metro Philadelphia, South Jersey and any other traveler that is passing through the area can be justified for this external financing because of the greater good that it provides.

However when neighboring Camden NJ is forced to lay off half of its police force because it is no longer a functional concern as a city - this is dysfunction far greater than what some temporary aide can overcome.  The state that provided the city its operating charter should consider de-incorporating the city and returning it as an unincorporated ward of the state (county).



My generic problem with the choices made by "Progressives who are Democrats who are Black" is that as they prepare to collect a binder full of "DAMAGE" that - (what do they call them?) - "House Republican budget cuts"...........they will never be forced BY THE BLACK COMMUNITY - to own up to the part that their LOCAL POLICIES and ECONOMIC PREFERENCES have played in the matter.

In what I call "a TRANSACTIONAL INDICTMENT" - any due blame for the local establishment's policy choices and governance which has them in their present hole are about to be shifted as an INDICTMENT against those who are guilty of TWO THINGS:

1. Refusing to initiate TAXES UPON THE WEALTHY as a means of fattening the federal treasury with funds for redistribution from PRIVATE to PUBLIC
2. Having the audacity to cut federal programs that were initiated to allow the people in the cities in question to live at a LIVING STANDARD in line with their "Social Justice" goals that result from the "Redistributive Policies" that they support.

Having read a portion of the "Fair Economy" report over lunch today it is clear how taxation and redistributive policies are central to their goals of economic stability for "the least of these".

If any of you assumed that the take over of power in the key institutions that those who hold the balance of power within our community would translate into a greater sense of "organic production" or increase their proclivity to assume responsibility for the outcomes - you are sadly mistaken.

The constraint which mandates "Organic Competency Development" stands as the key rebuttal to much of what they demand.  How much more damage are you going to be complicit with?

Will you stand with any additional "competencies" as a community - 100 years from now?
If so - at what point will it start kicking in?