Future Directions for Federal Urban Policy

Abstract

Significant changes have occurred in U.S. urban policy since 1980. The Reagan Administration has successfully argued that urban needs should be subordinated to national economic performance, which has resulted in cutbacks in federal support for urban development and reduced federal involvement in local economies. In spite of this lessened role of the federal partner, local capacity for managing its own development is high. Mayors have found the political resources to manage urban conflict, and new groups, such as the nonprofit agencies, have emerged to confront some urban needs like homelessness. In light of this experience and of the continued demands on the national government to address the deficit and the needs of the national economy, urban interests may find it difficult in the future to regain past levels of urban support.

The Decline of the Political Consensus for Urban Growth: Evidence from Los Angeles

“…Bradley was able to overcome the significant structural weakness in mayoral authority in Los Angeles by aggressively pursuing and securing large federal subsidies both for redevelopment and for social services. His strategy was made possible by the federal government's policy of investment in American cities during the late 1970s (Brintnall, 1989). Having secured money from outside the city (which is largely controlled by the City Council), Bradley was able to wield considerably more influence than the mayor's office would otherwise have afforded.…”

“…Since 1978, Proposition 13, the ballot measure that cut property taxes in the state by about one-third, had restricted the availability of state and local revenue for Bradley to pursue his redevelopment and social programs. The situation was made worse when the federal government withdrew from urban spending under the Reagan administration (Brintnall, 1989;Peterson & Lewis, 1986;Wolman, 1986). As federal grant programs were cut back and the state and local treasuries became increasingly unreliable, Bradley's money dried up.…”

The Growth of Enterprise Zones: A Policy Transformation

“…This "sanitized" version was introduced in the United States by StuartButler, a ccMiservati ve, British-educated economist working at the Heritage Foundation at the time (Butler, 1980(Butler, , 1981Walton, 1982;Plawkins, 1984;Brintnall, 1989). As the country faced overwhelming uncertainty and lack of consensus ova: the sqjpropriate path to economic growth and revilalization of large cities, the idea of enteipise zones as vehicles fOT solving uiban problems played into the hands of ccmservative.…”