```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1119-E1120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            AMERICA'S CITIES

                                 ______

                          HON. BILL RICHARDSON

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 24, 1995
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of 
my colleagues a wonderful article written by the Honorable Raymond L. 
Flynn, United States Ambassador to the Vatican. Ambassador Flynn had a 
distinguished career as mayor of Boston before his current service as 
Ambassador, and is very well informed of the problems and crises facing 
American cities. As an acknowledged expert in Urban Affairs, Ambassador 
Flynn has a keen interest and useful insight into solving the pressing 
problems of our cities. I would like to share a copy of Ambassador 
Flynn's article as published recently by Urban Affairs Review and 
commend it to my colleagues.
   America's Cities--Centers of Culture, Commerce, and Community--or 
                            Collapsing Hope?

                           (Raymond L. Flynn)

       Perhaps the greatest obstacle facing cities today is the 
     changing nature of the definition of city. The term city 
     formerly signified a social center wherein large populations 
     gathered to live, to exchange goods and ideas, and to develop 
     and sustain a system that provided for the needs of its 
     inhabitants. The very word had connotations of hopelessness, 
     a place where ``they'' live. People demand greater measures 
     against crime, welfare fraud, and illegal immigration. 
     Underlying these demands, however, is the sentiment held by 
     many Washington officials that few resources should be 
     dedicated to urban areas--and to those who dwell within them.
       In 1968, the Kerner Commission (U.S. National Advisory 
     Commission on Civil Disorders) issued a warning that America 
     was in danger of being divided into two nations: one white, 
     one black. Presently, the United States faces the prospect of 
     becoming a gated community--confining the poor within the 
     city limits, separating them from those better off in the 
     suburbs. Instead of seeking solutions to the problems of the 
     cities, the cities themselves, along with the people living 
     in them, have been incorrectly identified as the problem. If 
     this misperception continues, more will be at stake than our 
     cities. Indeed, the very values on which our nation was 
     founded--equality, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
     happiness--will be placed in jeopardy.
       The question has been asked, Why should we concern 
     ourselves with cities? It has been suggested by some high-
     ranking officials and sociologists that cities have outlived 
     their usefulness. It is argued that new technology and the 
     world economy have made cities obsolete and that we should 
     discard them like unproductive units in a company that needs 
     downsizing.
       This utilitarian approach to the modern city ignores the 
     reality that cities are made up of much more than material 
     and human resources. The people are the heart of the city and 
     cannot be reduced to a pool of disposable ``goods'' in an 
     economic system. Cities are much more than economic entities; 
     therefore, the human side of urban life cannot be ignored.
       There are many compelling motives for turning our attention 
     to the problems of the modern city. Among them are the 
     following:
       1. Cities have always been, and will always be, places of 
     refuge, where those in need seek the support and comfort of 
     others. They are centers for opportunities and hopes, where 
     ideas, talents, and native intelligence are translated into a 
     mutually energizing and life-giving environment conducive to 
     the development of both culture and commerce. The historic 
     roots of our nation remind us that nearly all of our families 
     entered the American mainstream through cities. Most of these 
     families arrived by ship, crossing one border or another, 
     legally or illegally (and, many times, in the ``gray area'' 
     in between). Cities in the United States kept the promise 
     inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty--to receive 
     ``Your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to 
     breathe free.'' No matter how far we may have come since 
     then, we cannot forget the values of the cities that were 
     home to them. To do so would be hypocritical, denying to new 
     immigrants the promise offered to our ancestors by American 
     cities.
       2. From a purely economic perspective, it would actually be 
     less expensive to spend more rather than less on cities and 
     the people living within them. The cost of urban misery is 
     astronomic. From furnishing prison beds to caring for low-
     birth-weight babies, from providing for health care for AIDS 
     victims and the elderly to feeding the urban poor, the cost 
     of the barely living index is exorbitant. This growing moral 
     deficit pulls not only on our consciences but also on our 
     economy. The expense of preventive programs can reduce the 
     cost of urban neglect.
       3. From a socioeconomic perspective, saving urban America 
     might be in everyone's self-interest. It seems that the 
     rumors of the death--and decrease in importance--of cities 
     are greatly exaggerated. Cities are again seen for what they 
     have always been--economic engines that create and distribute 
     wealth. In an upcoming book, Neil Pierce argues that city-
     states are replacing nations as the key units of production 
     in the modern global economy (Spence 1994, 11). Micheal 
     Porter, author of The Competitive Advantage of Nations 
     (1990), talks about the ``untapped economic potential'' of 
     cities, especially as hosts for the ``clusters'' of industry 
     he sees as the driving force in the new economy (Porter 1994, 
     11). Yes, capital is mobile, but is has to land somewhere. 
     Invariably, it is in cities. But which ones? A new school of 
     thought, with proponents such as Paul Romer, an economist at 
     the University of California at Berkeley, Lester Thurow of 
     M.I.T., and Michael Porter of Harvard, holds that cities 
     attract investment to the degree that they can bridge the 
     income gap with their surrounding suburbs. Romer states that 
     ``maybe even the rich can be worse off from inequality'' 
     (Bernstein 1994, 79).
       These sentiments are being echoed on the political front by 
     Democrats and Republicans alike. Labor Secretary Robert B. 
     Reich recently warned that ``A society divided between the 
     `haves' and the `have-nots' or between the well educated and 
     the poorly educated . . . cannot be prosperous or stable'' 
     (Bernstein 1994, 79). Republican theorist Kevin Phillips, who 
     traces the
      growing inequality to a transfer of wealth from the middle 
     class not down to the poor but up to the rich (Bernstein 
     1994, 79) agrees with this assessment. He remarks that 
     economic stratification is contrary to the American sense 
     of fairness and equality.
       Where did we go wrong? How did we lose the idea of equal 
     opportunity that has been part and parcel of city life? At 
     the moment, it is fashionable to ascribe the plight of our 
     cities to the failure of the urban policies of the 1960s and 
     1970s. Fashionable, but false. There are at least four 
     factors that have contributed to the present situation.
       1. Even as the urban policies of the 1960s and 1970s were 
     being initiated, the ``suburbanization'' policies that began 
     in the 1950s were continuing. Superhighway subsidies and low-
     interest mortgages accelerated the process of urban 
     disinvestment. Cities began to spruce up their front yards 
     and put out the welcome mats while the moving trucks were 
     pulling up to the back door, carrying away not only the 
     furniture but, more important, the families that form 
     [[Page E1120]] the fabric of a strong and vibrant community.
       2. Those who did stay to ``fight the good (urban) fight'' 
     found themselves embroiled in an unproductive and unnecessary 
     civil war (well documented by urban expert Nicholas Lemann, 
     1991) over whether these new policies should be administered 
     from the bottom up (by community-based organizations) or from 
     the top down (by local government). It is not clear who won 
     that war, but it is clear who lost--the cities and the people 
     in them. It is also clear that with few exceptions, mayors 
     began to see themselves more as CEOs than as community 
     champions, while people in the neighborhoods increasingly 
     found themselves having to fight City Hall.
       3. The urban policies of the 1960s and 1970s were preempted 
     by the ``What's in it for me?'' policies of the 1980s. Tax 
     and investment policies were enacted by an antiurban 
     administration in Washington that favored the wealthy 
     corporations at the expense of the community. This political 
     about-face prevented any progress that had begun in urban 
     areas from taking root.
       4. Finally, America still has not dealt with the issue of 
     race. Federal government mandates, quota systems, and 
     reckless policies have divided poor whites and blacks, 
     pitting one against the other. Until we deal with this 
     problem, our urban areas will remain fragmented.
       So what are we going to do about it? Ironically, the 1994 
     election gives us a new opportunity to finally ``get it 
     right.'' Let's begin by not repeating the mistakes of the 
     past. Let's recognize the importance of U.S. cities and 
     support them, just as we support any valuable institution in 
     American society, such as home ownership and business 
     investment. It is imperative to encourage ownership and 
     investment in our cities--by individuals and corporations--at 
     least as much as we do in the suburbs. We need to promote 
     policies that will halt the flight of the working middle 
     class, the backbone of our society, from our cities.
       Too costly? Many say so. However, those who call for cuts 
     in support to the cities might eventually have to consider 
     equal cuts in the suburbs. No enterprise zones downtown? 
     Fine, but let's stop building express roads to the suburban 
     shopping malls, roads that carry away both shoppers and jobs.
       Further, let's not force a false choice between community 
     and local government. During my 10 years as mayor, the city 
     of Boston was able to enjoy unprecedented success in building 
     affordable housing by collaborating with community 
     development corporations, in promoting jobs for Boston 
     residents by working together with employers and unions, in 
     caring for the hungry and the homeless by uniting our efforts 
     with a network of charitable organizations, in providing 
     quality community health care by working with neighborhood-
     based health centers, and in fighting crime by facilitating 
     cooperation between police and residents to form ``crime-
     watch'' groups. Citizens and governments have enough to fight 
     against without fighting each other.
       Moreover, mayors should be the leaders in working for 
     economic and social justice. They should be out in the 
     communities, fighting for the rights of their people in the 
     neighborhoods and not just in boardrooms, up at the state 
     House (where much of the political power has shifted), and 
     down in Washington. The present generation of ``button-down'' 
     mayors needs to return to a more grassroots approach if they 
     want their constituents to recognize that they are working 
     for their benefit and to avoid the divisiveness of a citizen-
     versus-City-Hall mentality. Urban America needs players, not 
     spectators; fighters, not promoters; activists not actors.
       I believe that city mayors have some powerful and active 
     allies in their effort to serve the well-being of their 
     citizens. One such ally is the religious community. I have 
     some experience in this area and can personally testify that 
     the Catholic Church, for example, is not motivated by what is 
     considered liberal or conservative or by labels such as 
     Democrat or Republican but, rather, by the quest for Truth 
     and Justice. The Catholic Church may be perceived as 
     conservative on moral issues, but is liberal and progressive 
     regarding economic and social issues such as strong concern 
     for working families and the needy (once traditional 
     Democratic voters). This, of course, is true for other 
     religious organization as well.
       You have only to read the documents from Annual U.S. 
     Bishop's Conference to be convinced that on many social and 
     economic issues, the positions of the Catholic Church are 
     very much like those of the Clinton administration, whose 
     agenda support working families, the needy, and the American 
     cities. Furthermore, their stated positions are in strict 
     opposition to those set forth in the ``Contract with 
     America.'' Although the Catholic Church does not support the 
     Democratic party platform on abortion, it is they make this 
     country work. We must bring cities back if we're going to 
     remember who we are, where we came from, and what we hope to 
     be. We must bring cities back if we're going to continue to 
     care.
     

                          ____________________
```