THE METROPOLITAN INITIATIVE
Report from the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Forum
Held on July 29, 1997 in New York City

On July 29, 1997, six civic organizations from the Tri-State region convened a group of 50 civic, business, community and government leaders to discuss ways in which the Federal government can help promote regional cooperation and quality life. The meeting was one of twelve forums being held in different regions of the U.S. as part of the Metropolitan Initiative ¾a project of the President's Council on Sustainable Development under the direction of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. This report of the meeting's discussion provides input for the initiative's recommendations to the President, as well as ideas for actions that can be taken by regional organizations and coalitions.

The report is organized into three main sections that parallel the meeting's agenda: an explanation of the Metropolitan Initiative's objectives and background, documentation of the issues and ideas discussed during the meeting, and a summary of the major themes that emerged.

I. Objectives and Background

Participants were welcomed by four of the forum's hosts: Claude Shostal of Regional Plan Association, Robert Kiley of the New York City Partnership, Barbara Lawrence of New Jersey Future, and Anita Miller of the Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program. (Michael Meotti of the Connecticut Policy and Economic Council was unable to attend.) Participants were reminded of both the importance of taking a regional perspective and the lack of a formal metropolitan governance structure. They were encouraged to build on existing efforts to enhance regional cooperation and quality of life and to expand the regional dialogue to include a broader range of constituencies.

Martin Spitzer, Director of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and Scott Bernstein, President of the Center for Neighborhood Technology, described the purpose of the Metropolitan Initiative and the objectives of the meeting. The initiative evolved from the Council's discussions on resolving conflicts between economic development and environmental protection. Eventually, the Council reached a consensus that metropolitan strategies are a key to developing sustainable communities that simultaneously improve the economy, equity and the environment. The Metropolitan Initiative is an effort to encourage regional cooperation to create sustainable communities, and to define productive roles for the Federal government to support these metropolitan strategies.

The output of the initiative will be a set of recommendations to the President and the Vice President for federal actions to help implement metropolitan agreements. Three types of actions may be recommended:

• "Smart Citizens": Information to empower local citizens;
• "Smart Money": Creative use of existing Federal expenditures; and
• "Smart Rule-Making": Flexible regulations to encourage locally appropriate solutions.

The recommendations may result in an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to support certain metropolitan agreements or demonstrations. Prior to the recommendations, the results of the twelve regional forums will be discussed in a national meeting and conference in the fall.

The following objectives were specified for the meeting:

• to identify an issue, or set of issues, that could form the basis for a metropolitan partnership,
• to establish a process for developing that partnership, and
• to specify the type of assistance that would be needed from the Federal government.

It was suggested that one outcome could be the formation of a committee to draft a letter to the President outlining a specific request.

II. Issue Identification and Discussion

Three discussions, each with a separate moderator, were conducted around the following topics: an assessment of recent experience in regional cooperation, ideas for more effective regional cooperation, and recommendations for the Federal role in metropolitan cooperation. The highlights of these discussions are described below.

Session #1: Recent Experience in Regional Cooperation

(Moderator: Ingrid Reed, Eagleton Institute of Politics)

Discussion in this session focused primarily on two questions: How do we define the region, and what has and has not worked in the recent past? Regarding the region's definition, several conclusions appeared to resonate:

• No single definition of the region can suffice for all purposes. "The region" can have many shapes and sizes depending on the issue and the perspective of the actors. The relationship of the Borough of Princeton to the Township of Princeton on land use issues, of Williamsburg and Greenpoint to Manhattan on job development issues, and of the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut on environmental and transportation issues were all offered as legitimate examples where a regional perspective was needed.
• This ambiguity, particularly in a region as large and diverse as the Tri-State region, contributes to difficulties in building support for regional solutions and governance structures.
• Of particular concern is how to connect community development to regional planning and investments, i.e., finding common language and concrete issues that enable community residents to understand the impact of regional projects and influence their selection and planning, and that enable regional planners to understand and take greater account of the needs of diverse communities.

In discussing "what works," it became apparent that the region has had some success in creating cooperative efforts around environmental and transportation initiatives, but that it has been relatively unsuccessful when it comes to economic development, land use and welfare-to-work policies. The fact that the Port Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority exist at all demonstrates that the regional dimension of transportation is recognized. On environmental issues, Federal and state agencies work together all the time. However, home rule nearly always wins over efforts to exert more state or regional control over land use, housing policies, or economic development. Regarding welfare-to-work, many participants felt that New York State was far less successful than other states in designing a strategy that involves business and that links urban communities to the suburban job market.

Of the many examples of regional cooperation that were mentioned, the following demonstrate where the region has had recent success or is beginning to formulate new approaches:

• The Access to the Region's Core project succeeded in getting the MTA, NJ Transit and the Port Authority to cooperate on a major transportation planning project for the first time since 1972.
• The watershed agreement between New York City, New York State and a coalition of upstate communities represents an unprecedented example of cooperation that balanced the water quality interests of a major city with the economic development interests of small towns and rural communities.
• Cooperation between New York and New Jersey was essential to the successful acquisition of Sterling Forest, which protected a large section of the region's remaining open space and a critical watershed for much of New Jersey.
• RPA's Third Regional Plan provided a blue print for regional investments and drew public attention to the importance of regional cooperation.
• The Long Island Pine Barrens Commission is a prototype for an organization structure to address environmental and development issues in a regional reserve.
• The Neighborhood Strategies Project has enabled three neighborhoods in three different boroughs to strengthen their links to the larger regional economy.
• The Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development is working with Konheim and Ketcham to develop a regional data base that will help community organizations identify companies that could fit with their economic development priorities.

Session #2: Toward More Effective Regional Cooperation

(Moderator: Richard Kahan, Regional Assembly)

The second session began with a discussion of why state and municipal governments in the region have been unable to cooperate more successfully to achieve a broad range of economic and social objectives. While no consensus was reached, several explanations were offered:

• Bad Rules: The incentives built into legal structures at all levels of government guarantee competition rather than cooperation. Financing public education through local property taxes forces municipalities to compete for commercial development. State laws often impede efforts to coordinate environmental regulation. The jurisdictions of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) set up under Federal ISTEA legislation are an awkward compromise of commuter sheds and political boundaries.
• Race: Underlying the bad rules are the politics of race and class. Home rule is strong because politically powerful constituencies want to keep their communities segregated. To support regionalism, we need to be honest about the real conflicts between local and regional development.
• Poor Communication: Grass-roots organizations, regional planners and public officials have different agendas, different languages, and no institutions that effectively connect communities with planners and decision-makers. The region needs an "infrastructure in the middle" to help forge a common agenda between leaders active at a community level and leaders active at a regional level.
• Poor Information: Good information about the region's economy and development is increasingly difficult to come by. If the true costs and benefits of different policies were better understood, it would be easier to form regional coalitions around common objectives.
• Leadership Gap: There is no visible leader from either the public or private sector who is taking the lead on regional issues. In the private sector, there is less concern with long-term metropolitan issues as corporations pursue global strategies. In addition, there is no regional business organization comparable to those that exist in Washington, Pittsburgh and other metropolitan areas. Among public officials, no one has stepped forward to bring the region's political leadership together around a galvanizing issue. Recent squabbling over the Port Authority has weakened support for regional approaches even further.

Proposals to move toward more effective regional cooperation usually addressed one or more of these barriers. Some were broad concepts, others were proposals for specific entities or policies. The actions that were proposed could generally be classified in one of three broad approaches: mobilizing regional leadership around a galvanizing issue, providing financial incentives for regional cooperation, and creating institutions that give structure and authority to regional planning.

In general, there was broad agreement on the importance of focusing on a simple issue with a broad constituency, but little consensus on what the issue should be. The idea of providing incentives also resonated well, but there was little discussion of how to structure the incentives. There were only a few voices advocating new institutions, but several that wanted a forum to improve some aspect of regional communication. Following are some of the particular ideas expressed.

1.Find the Right Issue (Regionalism for What?)

More speakers focused on the importance of focusing on a single issue or theme than on any other type of action. As one speaker put it, regionalism resonates so poorly that we accomplish more when we focus on a concrete objective without calling attention to the regional dimension. Several aspects were discussed, including the need to find issues that matter to a broad constituency, the need to build momentum before politicians will engage the issue, and the need to find common links between the agendas of different constituencies. In this regard, information and mobilization were considered keys to success. Myron Orfield's method of demonstrating common concerns among different constituencies and organizing a metropolitan campaign was cited as an impressive model.

Among the particular issue categories suggested were the following:

• Transportation projects that enhance regional mobility while creating jobs in communities
• Welfare-to-work strategies that engage business and link urban residents to suburban jobs
• Programs that address a regional health issue
• Brownfields redevelopment
• Harbor and waterway strategies that link economic development and environmental agendas

2.Create the Right Incentives (Money Talks)

There was a strong sentiment that it will difficult to get political leaders to cooperate unless a structure of incentives is created to counterbalance the disincentives to regional cooperation. While one or two nonmonetary incentives, such as regulatory relief, were mentioned, there was a sense that it will take dollars to leverage the types of changes that are needed. Most of the discussion focused on actions that the Federal government could take, such as providing a higher Federal match for transportation projects that are proposed jointly by multiple states or municipalities. However, the states could also offer incentives, such as school aid, to municipalities that cooperate in sharing services or coordinating land use plans.

A variation on the idea of incentives was also suggested. In the 1970's, concurrent commitments of resources by businesses and different branches of government helped revitalize New Brunswick. Replicating that approach could be considered on a regional level.

3. Establish or Reform Regional Institutions

A frequent refrain was that the lack of regional institutions with governmental authority severely constrains our ability to implement metropolitan strategies. For all of its contributions to regional planning and cooperation, RPA is a civic organization with no legal powers. The Port Authority is limited in both its mission and its geographic jurisdiction, and has recently become more a symbol of border warfare than of regionalism. Several suggestions were made to create, revive or reform regional institutions. Other proposals were made for less formal mechanisms that would fill a particular need. Ideas included the following:

• Create a Tri-State metropolitan planning organization (MPO) under the new Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation to replace the eight MPOs that currently exist.
• Revive the Tri-State Planning Commission that existed in the 1970s and 1980s, but address the political issues that led to its demise.
• Convince the Governors to enhance the Port Authority's role as a regional institution.
• Establish a regional Economic Council of Advisors with a regional research unit that serves all three Governors.
• Establish a forum in which community organizations, regional planners and public officials can identify and work toward a common agenda.

Session 3: The Federal Role in Metropolitan Cooperation

(Moderator: Emil Frankel, Day, Berry & Howard)

There were several strongly expressed opinions that the Federal government has not been a friend of cities or regionalism. The leading reason cited was the declining level of Federal dollars going either directly to cities or to address urban problems, ranging from housing to welfare to mass transit. However, other examples pointed to Federal regulations or decisions that ignore urban concerns or pit cities against suburbs. These included a decision by the Federal Aviation Administration and General Services Administration to exclude Jamaica as a potential facility site in spite of an Executive Order to locate in downtown areas, a decision made without community input to locate of a facility in Brooklyn that blocks waterfront views, and a general tendency to permit toxic sites in urban locations.

Examples of where the Federal government was helpful to the region were also discussed. It was acknowledged that the Clean Water Act was essential to cleaning up the New York-New Jersey Harbor, and that the previous ISTEA legislation was more favorable to the region than most other government allocations. There was fear, however, that reauthorization will be far less favorable to the region with the change in key Congressional committees. There was also a hope that brownfields legislation could redress some of the previous inequities and could be designed to enhance cooperation between different communities.

Discussion of how the Federal government could play a more constructive role began with a debate over whether we should be "politically constrained" and only suggest solutions that are possible in the current political environment, or whether we need to look beyond the current climate to create any meaningful change. Regardless of the level of constraint exercised by different speakers, several potential roles for the Federal government appeared to resonate:

• Providing financial support: Speakers exercizing political constraint spoke in terms of the Federal government providing incentives or financial leverage to cities and states to make more concerted, cooperative efforts to address regional problems, while less constrained speakers spoke of the need to reverse the anti-urban tide in Washington. However, it was nearly unanimous that money needs to be part of the solution. Specific ideas included providing demonstration grants for regional projects, higher allocations for projects involving cooperation between cities and states, and applying lessons from recent welfare legislation to transportation funding. On the last suggestion, it was noted that the incentives built into the welfare legislation forced dramatic changes and innovations by states, some positive and some negative, in how they structured their welfare programs.
• Convening local constituencies: The Federal government has the power to bring different constituencies together, providing labels and symbols that legitimize cooperative efforts, and leading efforts to reach consensus on contentious issues. It was suggested that the regional representatives of HUD, DOT, EPA, DOE, DOL and other Federal agencies have already played a positive role on particular issues, and could be helpful in bringing elected officials to the table.
• Devolving Federal responsibilities with resources and accountability: Giving metropolitan regions the responsibility and resources to address their own problems would be well-received, and could work if measurable performance criteria and standards for accountability are part of the reforms. This could be an approach for air quality, water quality and transportation planning.

In terms of immediate opportunities where the Federal government could apply these roles successfully, the list ran parallel to the list of issues that were identified earlier as objectives for regional cooperation: using reauthorization of ISTEA to demonstrate commitment to cities and encourage regional transportation planning, using welfare-to-work programs to encourage greater urban-suburban cooperation on job initiatives, and using brownfields legislation to redevelop urban areas and encourage cooperation among different communities.

III. Summary and Next Steps

David Mammen of the Institute of Public Administration summarized the discussion with five headings that captured the major themes of the day:

• "Metrushka": Ron Shiffman's analogy of the region as a Metrushka doll--We are a large community with many communities of different shapes and sizes nested within it.
• Miracles: In spite of all the forces working to divide us, committed individuals and compelling needs have often succeeded in bringing different factions together around a common goal.
• MPOs: The current structure of metropolitan planning organizations are an inadequate institutional infrastructure to advance regional objectives.
• "Myron's Maps": The success of Myron Orfield's use of maps to organize metropolitan constituencies demonstrates the power of good information when combined with concerted outreach and constituency-building.
• Money: In the end, the Federal commitment to metropolitan regions must be demonstrated with sufficient financial resources if we hope to achieve any fundamental change.

In closing, Claude Shostal suggested that there is a window of opportunity that has been opened by the economy. With the Federal government in its best financial condition in decades, and with cities and states having made significant progress in restoring fiscal stability, this may be our best chance to make long-term investments. Scott Bernstein reiterated the commitment of the President's Council to give the region a hearing in Washington, if the region's leadership can articulate a specific statement of objectives and demonstrate a commitment to continue working together. He suggested the formation of a small working group to continue discussion, with the objective of drafting a letter to the President with a specific request. Others suggested, and Bernstein agreed, that the letter would carry far more weight if it were signed by the three Governors, the Mayor of New York City, and other political leaders.