Forty years ago, as America’s inner cities imploded, the New Yorker ran
a sardonic cartoon. It portrayed a smug tower dweller overlooking a
vista of tenements. “Ghettoes aren’t a problem, my dear,” he blithely
informs his wife. “Ghettoes are a solution.”
Today, the “urban crisis” is metastasizing across the planet. More than
half of the world’s 6.5 billion people now dwell in cities—and more
than a billion of them survive in desperate slums. This gives global
resonance to the environmental, economic, and social equity struggles
of American cities. If we are to heed the words of Gandhi and “be the
change we want to see in the world,” thinking globally means acting
locally. Creating a sustainable planet starts in our own hometowns.
But even those who recognize this
responsibility seldom focus on the fundamentally public nature of this
endeavor. Unique challenges of organizing city life gave birth to both
the democratic and republican variants of self-rule. The very word
“politics” is derived from the Greek word for shared urban space.
Moving Beyond Individualized Solutions
No matter how laudable personal and small-scale endeavors may be,
planting trees, carrying canvas shopping bags, tending community
gardens, and installing solar collectors will not collectively
transform America’s cities into models of sustainability. The sheer
scale and complexity of the task will require public will, public
resources, public policy, and public action.
While “all politics is local,” there are some commonly shared
misconceptions that deter us from fully recognizing the public sector’s
vital role in reshaping our cities.
The most pervasive is the mindset that takes for
granted that local government primarily exists to provide specific
services. Of course, the traditional municipal functions we now take
for granted (such as police, fire, parks, libraries, sewers, roads, and
land use regulation) were all originally forged out of social upheaval
and political struggle. Those who pioneered these services were
crusaders, not functionaries. Today, however, the institutions
organized to deliver these services have ossified into underfunded and
self-perpetuating bureaucracies. Propping up these inherited structures
takes precedence over the bold innovation needed to meet today’s needs.
If we were starting from scratch (as Sir Robert Peele did in passing
the Metropolitan Police Act in Britain in 1829), would we safeguard
peace and order primarily through an armed and insulated caste of
uniformed officers? If we were looking to eliminate waste, would we
construct elaborate sewage systems and provide weekly collection of
garbage? That we have grafted elaborate adaptations onto our entrenched
structures (from “community policing” to “recycling”) only underscores
This investment in the past in turn reinforces the
myth that the public sector is inherently inefficient and ineffective.
There was a time when the burning passion of public service could put a
man on the moon. Now we wonder whether it can fill potholes.
Another self-limiting mindset is our deep disdain for politics, which
has become a shallow, petty, and self-interested game for insiders. The
absence of real people in the debate and struggle over the concerns
that affect their lives has robbed the public sector of both legitimacy
and leverage. A professional political class has gradually supplanted
the sphere of citizenship, relegating popular participation to mere
voting in elections—and on rare occasions banding together for
single-issue self-interest, such as protesting a highway extension,
affordable housing project, or tax increase. Without robust and
broad-based social and political associations, urban public life is
privatized and segregated—and governance becomes an arena for
mercenaries. Passivity perpetuates the self-fulfilling prophecy that
political activity is futile—leaving politics to private interest
A less pernicious, but equally misguided attitude,
is the notion that public life is unimportant or simply boring. Whether
it is the excuse that “people are busy” or the inescapable distractions
of so-called “popular culture” (a euphemism for corporate
entertainment), public life is neither compelling nor cool to most
people. This is quite convenient for perpetuating the status quo. Our
cities and our citizens face such tangible and significant questions
* How will we get around in the age of peak oil and global warming?
* How do we best utilize urban land to avoid sprawling onto farmland and sensitive habitat?
* Where should public resources be directed—and what investments should we make in our shared future?
Unfortunately, questions like these are avoided by politicians,
neglected by the media, translated into bloodless administrative jargon
by bureaucrats, overlooked by well-meaning single-issue activists, and
end up being virtually ignored by the people whose lives are directly
affected by them.