A National Strategy Session of the Metropolitan Initiative
Brookings Institution Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy
The Metropolitan Initiative was created to encourage dialog and action at the regional level on metropolitan cooperation and re-craft the relationship between metropolitan areas and the federal government.
The Metropolitan Initiative has produced papers describing policy alternatives. It has held regional forums in 12 metropolitan areas with approximately 1,000 civic leaders. It has engaged the PresidentÕs Council on Sustainable Development and other federal bodies. It has published all of its background research and meeting results and made them widely available. Through these steps, it has worked to build support for both a presidential initiative on metropolitan cooperation and an ongoing working group on metropolitan cooperation with representatives of various federal departments and agencies.
On November 12, 1997, The Metropolitan Initiative gathered participants from across the nation in Washington, DC to begin, as Scott Bernstein described it at the beginning of the meeting, to craft an effective partnership for regionalism between representatives from the 12 metropolitan regions and from various agencies within the federal government. The meeting included strong representation from the regions, foundations, the federal government and policy analysts.
The hosts for the meeting all stressed the need to work together to create and foster innovative metropolitan initiatives. Marty Spitzer of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development pointed out that each federal agency has some tools, but that, by acting together, the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. Bruce Katz of the Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy at the Brookings Institution stated his CenterÕs commitment to work with others to explore how federal taxes and regulations affect metropolitan regions and to generate policy reform ideas. He described the potential for new types of spatial coalitions and the federal governmentÕs important role in providing information, regulatory flexibility, and targeted dollars. DeWitt John of the National Academy of Public Administration focused the participants in the meeting on a key issue all of the participants face: Solutions to regional problems cross jurisdictions. Where the federal government has a role in helping regions to reach solutions, the authority is usually divided among federal agencies.
The November 12 meeting of The Metropolitan Initiative included presentations by representatives from each of the twelve regions, reprising many of the themes in regional background papers produced for the Metropolitan Initiative. A few themes carried through all of the presentations:
Immediately below are a few key points mentioned by the presenters from each of the twelve regions.
Pittsburgh (Andrew McElwaine and Bob Hurley): Strong neighborhoods in Pittsburgh are a major asset of the region, but a strong desire for autonomy neighborhood-by-neighborhood makes a regional agenda difficult to build. The suburbs are no easier a nut to crack. There is little identification with the central city. The most important hook seems to be smart growth.
San Francisco (Sunne McPeak): There are examples in San Francisco of the way in which the federal government can encourage cities within a region to work together. When EDA offered support, i.e. to become a partner at the table, if San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose would work together, it worked. The conditions for these kinds of partnerships to succeed are that (1) they must be bottoms up (top down structures donÕt work), (2) the federal agencies must be equal partners present at the table, (3) all of the partners must establish performance outcomes, and (4) the agreements must be in writing. At least in San Francisco, there does seem to be a new commitment among the executives and boards of the five key federal agencies to work together. A key lever is transportation investments. A key issue is affordable housing near jobs.
St. Louis (Les Sturman): Any successes are at the earliest stages. Even the successes have not necessarily created forward momentum. Metrolink (the light rail system) is a huge success, but a sales tax for Metrolink recently lost because of lack of suburban support. A key hook is smart growth and sustainability. States can change. There is unprecedented state-local cooperation in St. Louis. To succeed, regionalism depends upon empowering local officials while holding them accountable to a regional agenda.
Chicago (Jacky Grimshaw and Joyce OÕKeefe): Chicago is a city of very organized communities. There are many efforts beginning to envision a future for the region, but most are works in progress. The State is not a player. The greatest successes have been around planning open space. As usual, planning is easier than action. All of the experience suggests some characteristics of what works: (1) voluntary initiatives, (2) money talks, (3) locally based, (4) focused on planning, (5) flexibility to new solutions suited to local conditions, and (6) good information. What does not work are threats to the tax base, threats to autonomy, and cookie cutter approaches.
Boston (Grace Shepard): Unlike many of the other regions, Boston has a regional identity, but that does not make metropolitanism easy. To get regional cooperation, there must be incentives for municipalities to talk to each other and accountability for decisions. The State of Massachusetts may be beginning to see the advantage of giving money to regions rather than individual towns. At the federal level, ISTEA was a positive step. Advances are being made in governance of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) in Boston. In the cases of both the federal government and the State, they need to be equal partners in metropolitanism.
Southeast Florida (Ben Starett and Ralph Hamilton): It is hard to fight the basic underlying rules people believe in: ÒGrowth is goodÓ and ÒDevelop it and they will come.Ó Municipalities believe they need growth to pay for services, but the growth undermines their fiscal health. There are, however, positive signs. The connections among issues has become more clear to people. The Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Project has revealed the need to have a healthy urban area too. The key challenges to regionalism efforts are as follows: (1) there is no power analysis or strategy for using power, (2) the issues are driven by nonprofit organizations (There are no incentives for businesses to act), (3) race, (4) avoidance of the issue of poverty, and (5) the environmental starting point for the regionalism movement in Southeast Florida is a barrier to broadening out. A potential hook for the broader issues of poverty and suburban/urban integration is smart growth.
Cleveland (Janice Purdy): There is no shortage of examples of federal-local partnerships which have produced value for regions. Downtown redevelopment in Cleveland -- which could not have been achieved without federal UDAG, CDBG, and trail system support -- is the most important change to occur in Cleveland in the past decade according to residents throughout the region. Two aspects of ClevelandÕs efforts at regionalism are especially worthy of mention. One is the Church in the City project where the Roman Catholic Church is actively encouraging regional thinking. The other is Rating the Region. Scoreboards and public knowledge are key. The State in Ohio is uncommitted to metro regions. The most important things which Cleveland needs from the federal government to move forward its regional agenda are better information, shorter planning processes, and restructuring of federal tax codes as they affect housing and other decisions.
Atlanta (Emerson Bryan): There are 41 regional initiatives in Atlanta which were created as part of Vision 2020. A key theme is developing civic capacity. The Clean Air Act has forced a debate about growth management. It is hard to respond as long as counties have home rule. The states must get into the act. Another major issue is racial mistrust. Key criteria for a federal-metropolitan initiative are local community planning including everyone at the table with flexible funding to operationalize.
New York (Claude Shostal): Mega-governments are not a success. Issue-oriented coalitions with broad participation are a success. One thing missing is strategies to bring neighborhood coalitions into regional dialogs. It has not happened. Another thing missing is a federal law dealing with land. There is the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, but nothing for Land. ISTEA is a good start, but we need much more. The Urban Land Institute is a crucial player. Counties could also be important players.
Minneapolis-St. Paul (Lyle Wray): There is a strong tradition of local involvement in the Twin Cities. There are 30,000 nonprofit organizations for 4 million people. The region is awash in them. There is a rich civic network, emphasizing human capital issues. Nevertheless, regional government has no friends. The counties are proposing a Council of Governments (COG), and may get it. The region has a wonderful growth management plan, but it has no teeth. The Governor is neglecting regional governance, if not downright hostile to it. There is no precipitating crisis to galvanize people. There are a vast number of regional initiatives, but no overarching vision and no action plan. The Twin Cities region needs a federal nudge to make progress. Two logical entry points are welfare reform (twenty counties are planning welfare reform on their own) and training (there are 100 job training programs, many of which do not work with each other).
Detroit (Nancy Barber): Detroit had the crisis other regions say they have lacked. It reached the bottom and now is working on recovery. Two aspects of the work are reaching out to the suburbs and working with the federal government. EZ-EC and the American Heritage River Designation have fostered regional cooperation. Additional federal government flexibility in regional partnerships could be very helpful, especially around brownfields redevelopment. The biggest problems facing the region are transportation, jobs and housing mismatch, education, and crime.
Los Angeles (Scott Bernstein for David Abel and Rick Cole): The Los Angeles region needs to change from a region of enclaves to a regional community. It is too easy to sprawl out if residents simply donÕt care if it happens. The key question is how to make it easier for people to see the benefit of working together. Residents may need outside help in seeing what they have in common. One approach which may help is the Los Angeles initiative around Electronic Town Forums. People at 13 sites will be able to meet simultaneously through cable TV link ups. Some examples where the federal government has played a very positive role include the Alameda Corridor project, the community development bank project, a consolation prize for not being chosen as an EZ-EC site, and the Local Area Network Initiative. The federal government has shown that it can provide incentives for regional cooperation, but it also needs to establish performance measures.
Drawing from the lessons of all twelve cities, it is possible to begin to answer some of the questions asked about a new federal/local relationship to promote regional problem-solving and asset building:
There are many initiatives in each of the 12 regions. Most of the initiatives are works in progress which can only provide an early sense of what contributes to success:
WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUE CLUSTERS AROUND WHICH
A NEW FEDERAL/LOCAL RELATIONSHIP IS DESIRED
Many of the regions suggested that a good first step is to bring federal agencies together around a specific project with performance criteria. The best entry points to a regional approach seem to be:
Specific examples: There is no shortage of examples of federal-local partnerships which have produced value for regions. When EDA offered support, i.e. to become a partner at the table, if San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose would work together, it worked. ISTEA has raised hopes in many regions, including Chicago. The Everglades Ecosystem Restoration project. Downtown redevelopment in Cleveland -- which could not have been achieved without federal UDAG, CDBG, and trail system support. In Detroit, EZ-EP and the American Heritage River Designation have fostered regional cooperation. In the Los Angeles region, some positive examples include the Alameda Corridor project, the community development bank project, a consolation prize for not being chosen as an EZ-EC site, and the Local Area Network Initiative.
Following the reports from the regions, a panel of federal officials described their vision for a metropolitan initiative. A few criteria for effective federal-metropolitan partnerships were mentioned by just about all of the speakers. These criteria, which follow immediately below, mirror those proposed by the regional representatives, demonstrating that there is an emerging meeting-of-the-minds:
Immediately below are a few key points mentioned by each of the federal presenters:
PCSD (Keith Laughlin): The PCSD will produce recommendations in January which say that regional approaches are best for addressing sprawl. ISTEA is the best metropolitan planning tool the nation has right now.
HUD (Gloria Robinson): Managing growth and strengthening the investment climate in central cities are two sides of the same coin. Initiatives like EZ-EC allow regional residents to build trust which allows the conversation to broaden. The issues which most transcend boundaries are transportation and job creation.
EPA (Harriet Tregoning): The issues of taming sprawl, preserving farmland and open space, and reusing brownfields are all threads of one common theme. The high road for this theme is smart growth. The toughest nut is how to get jurisdictions to cooperate on transportation and land use. There is a great deal of interest in regional approaches today. We should remember that there has been this much interest at another time in the past, but it dissipated. We need to avoid polarization of city and suburb, perhaps by focusing on Òinvesting in existing communities.Ó
EDA (Phil Singerman): Regions are creatures of state government. To have lasting regional initiatives, it is essential to bring in the states. The entry point to regional conversations should not be the divisive issue of sprawl. Instead, it should be infrastructure efficiency, air quality, transportation, etc. Regional initiatives, such as the Northwest Timber Initiative and the Northwest Fisheries Initiative work because there is a crisis.
DOT (Jano Lieber): ISTEA is the largest regional program and, although there is a long ways to go, it is a success. One of ISTEAÕs important features is that regions canÕt put projects in their plans beyond their budget. This is a key point. Local governments should have authority, but they also must be accountable. Often people suggest that the federal government move from a command and control stance to one of partnership. It might be better to think of the shift from big brother to kindly uncle. The kindly uncle keeps family members from fighting among themselves. He encourages individual members to think about and follow their hopes. He provides funding for them to achieve their plans.
OPTIONS FOR A NEW FEDERAL/LOCAL RELATIONSHIP
DeWitt John kicked off the discussion about options for a new federal/local relationship with hope and caution. He pointed out that while there is a great deal of energy, dialog, and planning right now for metropolitan cooperation, there is still much more planning than action. These are very tough issues. Under these conditions, it is essential to think ambitiously, but it is also imperative to act carefully. DeWitt John described some of the obstacles ahead, including barriers to regional planning imbedded in state law and constitutions, limited federal money available, fear of unfunded federal mandates, and fragmentation of federal programs.
DeWitt John laid out a spectrum of approaches to federal-local cooperation on regional problem solving, including the following:
|Modest Experiments ----------------------------------------------------------Systemic Change|
1 2 3 4
Ad hoc Initiatives Build a National Network Add Regional Offices Strengthen/
Staff-level strategies including small grants for of Federal Agencies Build on regional conversations Add metropolitan ISTEA and
and demonstration projects, expediters. More MPOs.
and national idea sharing regional authority
Scott Bernstein asked the participants in the National Strategy Session of the Metropolitan Initiative to break out into three groups to choose some options for the scope, scale, and components of a federal initiative and describe ways in which a region might organize around a federal partnership. A few of the insights from each of the three groups are described here:
Group One:
In the long run, we are seeking a new paradigm for active engagement of local, state, and federal interest in metropolitan initiatives, but now we need doable first steps imbedded in a continuous improvement process. While it is possible to take a stab at the structure of an initiative, it will be important to talk to many more people and work through many details.
The first step is for the federal government to seek out regions with whom to partner which have created an inclusive and effective goal setting process at the regional level around specific issues. Partner is the key word. This is not a service delivery model, but rather a model of long-term co-investors. The regional boundaries should be self-defined based upon economic or ecological criteria. The governance of the regional process should be open and the collaboration should include everyone who has a stake in an issue (public, private, and non-profit).
Once it has chosen the regions which are best prepared to be equal partners, the federal government should come to an agreement for action with the regions with accountability from all of the parties. A piece of this commitment might be an executive order supporting federal involvement in regional initiatives, but such an order by itself will not be enough.
The basic components of the federal-local partnership might include small grants for on-site staff to coordinate and facilitate regional experiments. Most existing regional efforts need more support. The grants would be glue-makers and provide an incentive. There should also be grants and support for inter-regional learning which can accelerate continuous improvement. And there should be incentives to help build the capacity of states to support regional cooperation. Finally, there should be access to information systems needed to implement regional strategies. These aspects of the collaboration might be institutionalized now. The others -- how agreements are designed, implemented, and judged -- should be flexible and emergent.
Federal regional representatives would agree to sit at the table as partners and coordinate across their agencies as part of chosen regional initiatives. The initiatives would have a clear vision and accountability from all of the participants. The federal agency participants would have the capacity to make commitments to arrange for regulatory flexibility and massage and re-organize existing investment pools and resources. Through regional interagency agreements, the agencies would be held accountable to performance requirements. A performance basis is critical to success. The projects should be scored on environmental, economic, and social grounds. The participants should be scored on whether they meet commitments to initiatives.
For this experiment to work, there must be incentives and rewards for staff of the federal agencies who are risk-takers. One would be a pot of money for interagency initiatives in collaboration with regions. Another would be recognition for federal employees who show leadership in this arena.
Group Two:
The metropolitan initiative needs to be framed in the context of a crisis if we are to get people to act. Global competitiveness might be positioned as such a crisis for regions.
The primary goal of a federal initiative is not to change federal behavior. Rather, the goals is to change behavior of people within regions. Regional collaboration can be reinforced with federal support. A well-structured initiative should establish a level playing field within a region between the city, inner ring suburbs, and outer ring suburbs with respect to the issue addressed by the initiative. It should also minimize the incentives for competition and conflict within the region.
A federal initiative probably should be structured as support for regionally-determined agendas, rather than driven by federal categorical grant programs or set-asides. The initiative might focus on one or two areas, such as welfare reform or smart growth. Each region would develop its own plans to address these issues.
It should not be about new money, but rather how existing money is spent and who decides. It is not lack of money, per se, that is the barrier to metropolitan cooperation. The role of the initiative would be to ensure that the response of the agencies to regional proposals to do business differently would not be the same as it was in the EZ/EC program, where flexibility was offered, but not delivered.
The first task of each regionally-determined agenda should be to make the most of all the non-monetary functions of government and then to figure out how to use existing funding better. Information access in formats useful at the regional level is one of the key non-monetary benefits of a metropolitan initiative, as well as basic analysis on key regional issues, such as the real cost of sprawl.
The key elements of the partnership agreement between a region and the federal government should be as follows:
For these elements to work, the federal agencies at the regional level also need to be coordinated. The federal government needs to figure out ways to cut across agencies and build an infrastructure which has a geographical focus rather than an issue focus (e.g. the virtual ÒDepartment of ClevelandÓ). HUD software for consolidated planning may help because it identifies all of the funding sources that might be available to address any problem or work within any jurisdiction.
There will need to be persuasive arguments for why the federal government should take these steps. The argument is that by facilitating stronger regional economies and civic engagement, the federal government will further its national goals for global competitiveness and quality of life. Agencies may also be able to improve the efficiency of their service delivery. Finally, there needs to big show of interest from the regions. Officials need to consider that the can be more effective locally by virtue of their regional engagement and claim credit for the result.
Group Three:
Federal agencies already do a lot for regions, but reorganizing and redirecting these services could make a paradigm change possible. A few core needs which regions would want addressed in a recrafted relationship with the federal government are better information, more performance-based program development and improvement, and more support for planning.
The federal government has an important information role, but it is probably not in rating the regions. What would be helpful is early warning indicators and information that reveals new opportunities. Also helpful would be information about what works and what does not and why. The Government Performance and Results Act might focus on indicators. Data must be available for meaningful regions, even if they cross state borders. A positive step would be to use more and coordinate Graphic Information System data across agencies. There also needs to be better analysis of the costs and benefits of various development patterns, and holistic information that explains what drives current behavior.
Evaluation and performance standards are another important component. Metropolitan regions need more critical assessment of ISTEA and other federal policies. They would like to see continuous improvement processes that address the deficits in programs and policies promptly. At a time when performance benchmarking is gaining adherents, the federal agencies need to rebuild their evaluation infrastructure. For example, ISTEA has begun the federal-metropolitan conversation, but it is not yet working the way it was intended. The administration could make a difference by focusing on how to improve the effectiveness of ISTEA. Still, it is not clear how far the ISTEA structure can go in dealing with an array of issues, including jobs, fiscal and service disparities, and racism.
A third component of a recrafted relationship with the federal government should be planning grants to spur metropolitan cooperation, especially efforts to create mutual gain for central cities and suburbs. Along with this financial support, the federal government could also help by facilitating discussion across regions and disseminating information about what works. Multiple conversations are needed to help people from different spheres to speak the same language and understand the risks and the opportunities.
Whatever the federal role is, it needs to reflect where each region is. The entry point -- the galvanizing crisis, perhaps -- will be different in each region.
CORE PRINCIPLES FOR A FEDERAL METROPOLITAN INITIATIVE
The break-out sessions of the National Strategy Session revealed that there is significant agreement across the twelve regions represented at the meeting, the federal officials, and the foundations about the core principles for a federal metropolitan initiative:
Why the Federal Government Should Care About Metropolitan Regions: Global competitiveness for the United States can only be maintained if the regional economies of the United States are globally competitive. Environmental sustainability for the United States can only be achieved if the watersheds and eco-regions of the nation are preserved and restored. Civic engagement can only be revitalized at the local level.
Goal of the Federal Initiative: To support collaborative behavior among residents of metropolitan regions by increasing the incentives for voluntary regional collaboration, reducing the incentives for competition and conflict, and facilitating and broadly sharing learning about what works and what does not.
Objectives of the Federal Initiative: Enable representatives of federal agencies to become equal partners in regional initiatives, supporting regionally-determined proposals to do business differently, use existing funds differently, and accumulate information at the regional level.
Issue Focus: Suggested issues include open space and flood management, welfare reform, smart growth/sustaining existing communities, transportation investments, affordable housing near jobs, and regional sustainability. Each region would choose the issues which matter to it and develop its own plans to address these issues.
Key Elements of the Partnership Agreement Between a Region and the Federal Government:
During the last segment of the National Strategy Session, Keith Laughlin stressed the depth of support for a regional metropolitan initiative within the federal government. The charge to the Metropolitan Initiative, he said, is to make as specific a proposal as possible. Because almost 1000 regional leaders have been involved in the Metropolitan Initiative, the proposal will be credible. The ability of the federal administration to respond does depend upon this sort of support from regional leaders.
Many of the regional representatives at the National Strategy Session felt it would be difficult to make a specific recommendation to the federal government without first having further discussion of ideas at the regional level. It was not clear what the right next step is that meets the need of federal leaders for a proposal and the need of regional leaders to look to others within their regions for guidance and support. The suggestions for next steps included the following:
Scott Bernstein urged the group not to lose the forward momentum it has created. There is tremendous energy within the room and the regions, even independent of a federal initiative. Nevertheless, a federal initiative could be a galvanizing force. At this moment, there is no funding for additional regional meetings. The tough question is how to move forward under these circumstances. Can next steps be taken without additional regional meetings? Will the regions meet without outside financial support? Are their potential sources of financial support? Scott Bernstein proposed targeting a few issues where the federal government has a big impact on regions, adding state agencies and others to the conversation, quickly writing up the results of the meeting and agreeing on core principles for a metropolitan initiative and a menu of options for first steps on the part of the federal government.