Blogger Candidate Forum: Will Place Matter?

http://rooflines.org/4571/does_place_matter_anymore_cities-and_the_2016_elections

Los Angeles City Hall
en.wikipedia.org

Hello Everyone:

Yours truly is back from a slightly manic filled three-day weekend.  Before we get going on today's subject, does place matter in this election, a quick programming note.  First, Blogger Candidate Forum will be going on hiatus until September 26, when it will return with live blogging from the first Presidential Debate.  Second, in lieu of the regular posts Blogger will be sharing photographs from travels in England.  Should be a good time.  Regular posts will return September 27.  That said,  on to today's post.

Does place matter in this Presidential Election cycle?  This is the question that Alan Mallach asks in his blog The Shelterforce, published on rooflines.org.  Mr. Mallach observed "...how little, if at all, cities have figured into the presidential election..."  This is a true statement.  Over the past 15 months (has it been that long), none of the candidates have put forth an urban agenda.  To get a better grasp on way this is the case, Mr. Mallach spent some time studying Democratic nominee Secretary Hillary and Republican nominee Donald Trump's websites.  Not surprisingly, he discovered that cities did not figure into their platforms.

The major party standard bearers
online.com

Alan Mallach writes, "...the different ways in which they don't seem to matter much to either pay sheds an interesting light on the candidates and the parties they do or do not lead."  Party platforms are mostly talk, but talk matters.  The details could be overlooked by whichever candidates wins in November, but what is being or not being said matters.  Mr. Mallach observes, "Predictably enough the Republicn platform is a 54-page angry, frustrated rant direct at President Obama, democrats, bureaucrats, big government, and anything anyone on the right doesn't like."  You can read it at http://www.gop.com.  It spends an inordinate amount of time talking about scaling back than going forward.  The only real reference to cities Mr. Mallach found was oblique reference to "...roll back D.C. home rule, calling on Congress to 'assert, by whatever means necessary, its constitutional prerogatives regarding the District.'" (page 30) The platform also denounces the President's

...exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit[...] meant to coerce people out of their cars. 

We might have known.

Cafe Berlin
Washington D.C.
restaurant.com

Any mention of ensuring safe neighborhoods translates into nothing more than loosing the real (or imagined) federal restraints on local law enforcements and ending the

...Attorney General's present campaign of harassment against forces around the country... (page 39)

Although cities or metropolitans are directly referred to, some of the planks in the platform would have direct impact: ending federal funds for mass transportation (page 5), guaranteed financial compensation to property owners affect by environmental regulations (page 15), and maintaining local zoning and cutting back the federal Affirmatively Furthering Housing regulations (page 4).

Just as predictable, the Trump-Pence campaign website, (http://www.donaldjtrump.com; accessed Sept. 6, 2016) is fairly devoid of substantive issues.  Alan Mallach points out, "Indeed, when one clicks 'Issues,' the first thing that comes up is a video with the head line "Former Students Speak Out in Support of Trump University."  Really?  This is a critical issue facing the United States.  Blogger supposes it is just as critical an issue as  Madame Secretary not having that "presidential look."  The remainder of the "Issues" link is a series of Trump rant videos with titles like ""What I would Do on My First Day in Office" and "I Will End Common Core, It's a Disaster."  Given this, perhaps it for the best that Mr. Trump is not focused on cities.  Who knows what his agenda would be.

Thus, given Mr. Trump's base and downright strange tendencies, the level of expectations should be pretty low.  When pivoting toward his discussion of the Clinton-Kaine campaign's  urban platform, Mr. Mallach writes, "...sadly, the Democrats, while radically different, are not much better."  How so, you ask?  Read on

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Tim Kaine
bbc.com

The Clinton-Kaine website (http://www.hillaryclinton.com; accessed Sept. 6, 2016) is far more substantive.  Madame Secretary has excruciatingly detailed position on 37 (no joke) position on a wide variety of issues from "..ending Alzheimer's disease to addressing climate change."  That is a lot of ground to cover and buried inside is one item addressing where Americans live, focusing on "rural communities."  No mentions of cities, regions, metropolitans, land use, housing.  Absolutely not a thing.

The Democratic platform, as a document.  Mr. Mallach calls it "...a far less polished document than the Republican one and runs to 55 pages.  You can read it at https://www.democonvention.com  It has something for everyone-a worthy cause that needs support or need that requires funding.  Cities do get their share of air time under the heading of "Building Strong Cities and Metro Areas."  Mr. Mallach observes,

" Admittedly, it's only three short paragraphs out the 55 pages, but they had a lot of ground to cover.  In those three paragraphs, the Democrats promised to expand funding for roads and bridges, public transit, drinking and wastewater systems, broadband and schools; revitalize communities by building on the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and the Hardest Hit Fund; build more affordable rental housing units; train entrepreneurs and small business owners in underserved communities; and expand federal funding for the New Markets Tax Credit, community development financial institutions, and the State Small Business Credit Initiative (page 21)."

Hollywood, California side street with Capital Records
streetgangs.com

This reads like a wish list come true.  Blogger partially disagrees with Mr. Mallach's assessment that "..there is no possible way that these promises can be carried out..."  True, the above paragraph sounds quite generous but Blogger does not agree that there is no possible way any of this will see fruition.  Rather, Blogger believes that some of these items will see the light of day in some form and fashion.  Although given the prevailing politics, a Democratic White House may have an extraordinarily difficult time getting its legislative agenda pushed through if Congress remains under the control of the Republicans.

Like Mr. Mallach, yours truly would also love to see funds allocated for cities as well as vocational training, infrastructure, clean energy, and so on.  Blogger does not think the Democrats are making all sorts of promises it cannot possibly keep.  Everyone does that in an election year because that is what politicians do.  What seems to be lacking for Mr. Mallach, vis-a-vis the Democratic platform, is a vision.  The Republicans have a vision, albeit a frightening one, "...one in which the federal government hands the people of the people of the United States over to the tender mercies of the most cutthroat features of the capitalist systems and the most retrograde elements of state and local government, while thwarting the hopes of immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ, and lower-income communities."

The Democratic Party deserves kudos for offering a clear vision of a federal government that supports the rights of its citizens and tackles income inequality but does the Blue Team have a vision for the places where people live?  Perhaps they do not.  Alan Mallach observes, "Neither the platform no Hillary's website suggest that either she or the Democratic party have any ideas about place, about how our neighborhoods, cities, and metros could become better, healthier and more inclusive communities, or how a creative. progressive federal government could help them get there."  If Secretary Hillary Clinton does win the November election, one can hope that making places matter will be part of her agenda.