Government Citichat 7 November 2008

CITICHAT 44/2008 - 7 November 2008


What can our cities expect from a new government?

Was interested to read, a couple of weeks back, well before the US elections, an analysis of what cities in the US could reasonably expect under each candidate for the Presidency. The McCain approach can now be ignored as irrelevant but the commentator suggested that under Obama there will, in all likelihood, be “an activist federal government in areas from transit and infrastructure to housing, But this won’t be the historic Democrat centre-city urban policy but rather shifting and co-ordinating federal programmes to help boost the fortunes of entire metropolitan regions.



In addition Obama made a pre-election pledge “to create the first ever White House Office on Urban Policy. With a director reporting to the President, its role would be to get the federal government’s historically “siloed” cabinet departments and agencies to work collaboratively with cities and metro regions.” He endorsed a new national infrastructure bank, “seeded with $60 billion in Federal funds over 10 years, to move road rail, bridge, airport, rail and other metro area projects forward.” He was also calling for “$200 million in annual grants to spark “regional clusters” in advance sciences or cutting edge technologies.”



At the US Conference of Mayors in June, he is reported to have said “Yes we need to fight poverty….fight crime…..but we also need to stop seeing our cities as the problem and start seeing them as the solution. Because strong cities are the building blocks of strong regions and strong regions are essential for a strong America.”



Amen, Mr President-elect!



So where would moneys come from in the current economic client? The commentator suggested that funds could well become available by dropping America’s arming “of their aggressive foreign policy” but, whatever the constraints, Obama’s presidency would at least aspire “to deliver 21st century intellectual power, strong personal commitment to our cities and regions and intent to appoint the most skilled administrators the country has to offer That alone would clean away the detritus of the last years – with a youthful administration, and a Congress and President of the same party, metropolitan America’s chances would surely be brighter.”



To deliver 21st century intellectual power, strong personal commitment to our cities and regions and intent to appoint the most skilled administrators the country has to offer. Wow, what an inspiring commitment!

What has this to do with us?

Firstly I don’t think that I’ve heard anything from the “new regime” in relationship to urban, or for that matter, rural issues. Secondly, how refreshing it would be to hear from Presidential candidates or, in our case I guess from Political Parties, what their approach to such issues will be – after all their approaches will affect the lives of every person in this country not just the over 50% who live in our urban areas.

Thirdly, I don’t think that the current national government has exactly covered itself in glory in regard to our towns and our cities. Urban policy is generally not debated publicly and is usually handed down from on high. Apartheid planning is still alive and well with many municipalities clearly ignoring the imperative of integration within town and city centres as they let greedy developers establish projects that dis-integrate their urban centres. Fourteen years after embracing democratic government, much urban planning in this country still acts as an exclusionary factor particularly for the poor. Given the ongoing racial divide that characterises rich and poor, it is imperative that centres of integration be specifically developed and that new development is not allowed to further fragment racial integration.

At a workshop on “Poverty Alleviation & Exclusion in the Inner City” in 2003, Professor Sue Parnell said “Not all of the people who are unable to access the resources or opportunities of the city are poor, but they are excluded through prejudice, law or the failure to be able to achieve their rights because of the way the social or administrative system is structured.”

The silo mentality persists at all three levels of government with national government curtailing any form of public entrepreneurship through controlling legislation. Municipalities who tried to become more efficient by corporatising services, as Johannesburg did, now have these entities also subject to the massive bureaucracy imposed through the Municipal Finance and Management Act – government aimed at the lowest common denominator. Even then corporatisation doesn’t appear to have resulted in increased efficiencies in all our ‘Municipal Owned Entities’ (MOEs).



Our so called ‘integrated planning’ is another approach that appears brilliant on paper but has little effect on the ground.

Typical of our ability to design competent legislation based on world best practice and then not to fund its implementation, is our National Heritage legislation, but it goes far beyond that. Bureaucracy and lack-of-enforcement have bred inefficiencies on a massive scale as well as corruption. Lack of enforcement, or at local level, selective enforcement, is restraining proper development and I think is still one of the biggest negatives we live with. I read and hear of promises that a new administration will focus on poverty and service delivery but we’ve been hearing that for fourteen years! As someone said to me “We talk so good that we believe our own lies!”

Grumpy? End of the year blues? Not really. Maybe my recent trip to Europe and the US elections have exposed me again to what things could be like when politicians are brave enough to say real things for which they will be held accountable and civil servants do what they should be doing when it needs to be done.

Regards, neil