This is just a paper I wrote for my Urban Politics and Government Class. It is more like a last minute thing that I typed up so I realize its probably not in the best shape. Regardless...
Throughout the last fifty years there have been many attempts made by Presidents to help improve the state of urban affairs and rejuvenate America. Since the 1960’s many Presidents have developed programs that have pushed the federal government towards assisting in urban renewal. Some of the Presidents urban policies have been a great success where others have not. Also, there is much debate over the new President, Barrack Obama’s urban policy plan. To judge whether or not his plan will be a success, it is important to first look at the urban policies that have been implemented in the past.
Grant-in-aids were designed to send federal funds to the states to be used for domestic programs. Their popularity had been increasing but did not come into full effect until the 1960’s. During the 60’s the focus of these grants changed from being used to help states accomplish state objectives to helping “accomplish nationally defined objectives” (Text, pg. 333). As to every decision made there are both praises and criticisms and grant-in-aid programs are no exception.
These programs have been praised for helping to encourage the states to address and spend a lot of money on urban problems and also have allowed federal money to be more accessible. On the opposite side of all the benefits, there are the criticisms. It is argued that these grants have caused the decline in central cities populations due to the interstates being brought into areas that do not desire them. Because of the diminishing population, retailers move away with their customers. The development of grants has also made it to where local budgets are determined by federal programs which has made it quite difficult for states to apply their money to areas that are not supported by the grants (Text, pg. 336). Grants are only the first approach from the federal government to help with urban problem solving. There are many more policies that have led to the current state of America’s urban policy.
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1968) established the War on Poverty and called his administration the Great Society. He set up programs to fund things like transportation, housing and education. Johnson allowed the relationship between urban centers and the federal government to expand through increasing cooperation and involvement. There is nothing that goes un-criticized which holds true for these programs. It was argued that the federal government did not think states had the ability to make their own priorities and that they were breaking up families and trying to rid of blacks (Text, pg. 339). All of these criticisms were looked at by the incoming Presidential administration.
Executive administration would completely switch roles in 1969 when conservative Richard Nixon was sworn into office. His goal was to strengthen state governments under his new system which was called New Federalism. Nixon enacted Revenue Sharing which began to eliminate the impact of grants which led to state and local governments using federal revenue as seemed fit. The most significant result of the New Federalism administration was the development of the community development block grant which helped in urban redevelopment. The money went straight to city governments which led to more power being left to councils and elected executives (Text, pg.341). A “New Partnership” of the federal, state, city governments and private industry would be established with the transfer of powers to President Carter.
Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) calling for a “New Partnership” sought to fix problems in the big cities. Carter’s goal was to channel funds into development projects in urban neighborhoods and help revitalize distressed cities. He intended for large corporations to invest in cities to help create jobs for those in need. His efforts would be overturned with the changing of Presidents.
President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) brought back New Federalism. He believed the urban development projects should be left to the private sector. Like Nixon, he wanted to eliminate much federal authority over smaller governments. Throughout his administration, although more decisions were left up to the cities, they were running short on money and had to eliminate services. Throughout his presidency the economy did steadily grow yet there was nothing done about poverty, crime or poor schools. The continuous changing of policy would not stop with the new President.
From 1993-2001 President Bill Clinton pushed for the federal government to have a strong role in cities. Through his empowerment zone program millions of dollars were given to cities in need. In 1994 the Crime Bill was passed which helped reduce violent crime and improve policing standards. The Welfare Reform was also passed which drastically helped improve the number of people receiving welfare.
Parties and policies would again be switched with President George W. Bush. He ran his administration off what he called compassionate conservatism. He wanted educational reform which led to the No Child Left Behind Act. He will be known for the War on Terrorism which led to local money being spent to increase security. Bush left his office with the nation in a huge recession. Critics say that he was more worried about personal empowerment than urban renewal (Text, pg. 356.)
President Obama will be the first president in over 20 years that has focused on urban affairs and its importance to the American economy. The goal of Obama and his chief urban advisor Valerie Jarrett is to take federal urban policy and evolve it from being about dealing with the poor to being about developing cities and regions that will make America stronger (Greenblatt 2009). Obama is focusing on urban policy during his presidency and his main objective is to get regions working together and to have the upper and lower levels of government cooperating with one another. The President is quoted saying “We 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” (Greenblatt 2009). It is difficult to determine whether or not President Obama’s urban policies will succeed.
Although Obama and his administration have laid down the ground work for their urban policy, they have not yet provided many details about how immigration, transportation, criminal justice or poverty will be dealt with. This is not to say they are showing a lack of effort. They are currently researching and developing the best way to institute all the new changes of the reformulated executive branch. By looking at the past it makes it easier to evaluate the possibilities of this new plan working. Over the past 50 years there has been a shuffling of Democratic and Republican presidents and they have all had their own ideas on how the nation should be ran. Some of the ideas and policies were a temporary success where as others were not.
From Johnson and the Great Society, Nixon and New Federalism, Carter and the New Partnership, Clinton and his empowerment zone program to Bush and the War on Terrorism, many different policies have been implemented. Generally all of these efforts, if successful, were only temporary successes. All the federal programs put in to place by the different administrations that still exist are run independently of one another so it is questionable as to whether or not one united urban policy will be able to tie them all together to have a beneficial payoff. This is what the critics of Obama’s urban policy argue.
Due to the fact that he is basing this new policy on helping to rejuvenate the cities it is easy to say that yes, these plans will benefit cities and their residents. America will have more jobs. The millions of people who have lost their job due to the recession will gain them back. Cities will be improved which will draw more residents into the area, boosting revenue. Roads will be improved as will neighborhoods and schools and crime rates will have the potential to decrease. All of these things will happen because for once the executive branch will be focusing at the heart of this nation, where all the main problems are exhibited. Obama ensures that The Office of Urban Affairs will work with federal agencies to make sure that all federal money is targeted towards the highest impact programs. The President states that he is going to focus attention on the long over looked urban areas where 80 per cent of Americans live and work (City Mayors Metro News 2009).
If overtime Obama’s plan is a success then the economy will have a huge boost and slowly yet surely America will remove itself from the recession that it was left in by the former President Bush. This is the ideal situation. If Obama can achieve his goal and get mayors and cities to work together to do what is better for the group as a whole than his urban policy will be a success. No President in the last 50 years has tried this approach so it will be interesting to see the end result and whether it will withstand the tests of time. There will always be those in power who oppose executive decisions and are not willing to cooperate. There are also those who think that it is time something is done to uplift America’s economy, whether they are Republican or Democrat. A republican congress man, Roy Blunt says that “A stimulus plan that makes sense is something that I will be helpful with” (Favro 2008). Even though past presidential attempts to repair the economy have not succeeded as planned, that is no reason to give up hope. President Barrack Obama has instilled hope into American cities and his plans are something he will follow through with, no matter how hard the opposition is. No matter how much he is criticized, Obama will take the proper measures to set up a successful urban policy that is critical to the success of America.
