A Regional New Year’s Resolution, by Bill Dodge, Regional Excellence

Regional Excellence


A Regional New Year’s Resolution

by Bill Dodge


Ugly cats! The phrase caught my attention as I was being introduced at a regional gathering. I had become used to the kind comments, and often hyperbole, of introductions, but I had never heard “He’s the sort of person who loves ugly cats!” She went on to clarify her comment, suggesting that regions were like ugly cats, and one had to have a something akin to a mother’s love to want to foster regional cooperation.


I have now labored for over three decades in the trenches of regional cooperation, helping local leaders and citizens to design ways to cooperate to address cross-cutting challenges. Unfortunately, regions have all too often been ugly cats. And that legacy might threaten the future of regional cooperation, just when it is needed most.


Regional cooperation has had some incredible successes, but it continues to fail to address the tough challenges in most regions. And the challenges are getting tougher, from decaying infrastructure to declining air and water quality, increasing natural and terrorist threats, accelerating climate change, volatile energy costs, and profligate growth. Without success in addressing the toughest challenges -- the true test for governing regions -- “bottom-up” regional cooperation will die, and along with it the ability of individual citizens and their local governments to shape their own futures.


Unless regional cooperation provides an effective tool to address tough challenges, and quickly, it will be displaced by "top down" state and national government actions in response to public frustration. And there is no guarantee that higher levels of government will do better.


I draw this conclusion, reluctantly. Have I, and the many colleagues I respect, been wasting our working years practicing regional cooperation? Were our efforts to educate individuals, establish regional mechanisms, share public services, and design compacts to address timely challenges all for naught?


A resounding no! Our efforts have resulted in building some amazing regional cooperation mechanisms -- from regional councils of governments to regional chambers of commerce, academic institutes, citizens leagues, and sewer and transit authorities. It has resulted in addressing pressing regional challenges in every region across the country -- especially transportation challenges. Maybe, most importantly it has resulted in educating individuals on the importance of regional cooperation and engaging them in cooperative efforts.


But, alas, regional cooperation increasingly appears to be bumping up against an impenetrable governance ceiling. Whereas regional mechanisms have nurtured more sophisticated visioning, problem-solving, service-delivery, and even performance auditing capacities, most lack the powers, resources, and especially public support to address the increasingly tougher regional challenges. And the gap between the capacity of these mechanisms and the emerging challenges appears to be growing.

The “Achilles Heel” of the best of regional cooperation efforts has been the lack of “clout” commensurate with the challenges being addressed. My fear is that asking weak regional cooperation mechanisms to take on more, and more demanding challenges, will not only result in fewer successes but mortally weaken the very places that drive our and the global economy. Citizens need to break out of their “local” mindsets, consider the regional “unthinkable”, and advocate for the regional “unheard-of”, if regional cooperation is to have the powers and tools to make regions work. With the support of, not the displacement by, state and national governments. And now!


Regrettably, all too many stateside regions are already behind their counterparts world wide. The European Community focuses its economic development assistance on regions, resulting in its national governments creating empowered regional organizations, with resources, across the continent and channel. Canadian provincial governments have experimented with almost every option for strengthening regional cooperation, including regional confederations of local governments and regional governments. National governments worldwide are creating regional administrative agencies to assure the delivery of critical educational, health, transportation, and other local services, effectively. I have recently spent time in Ghana, a developing country, and Chile, a developed country, and both have established such regional entities. The rest of the world increasingly empowers regional mechanisms to address the toughest cross-cutting challenges. And then holds them accountable for their performance.


Stateside regions tend to quickly dismiss most options for strengthening regional cooperation. They mask their objections in our tradition of independent local governments; that government closest to the people is the best. Less frequently voiced is that weak regional cooperation reinforces the tyranny of individual local governments, especially those that are affluent, think they can take care of their own needs, and are unwilling to cast their lot with the regional hoi polloi. Some of these objections have merit in that many of the overseas actions are “top-down”, limiting local government and citizen involvement in designing regional cooperation models or participating in their activities. But, thus far, few regions stateside have been inspired to pursue “bottom-up” models that provide real powers and resources to regional cooperation, in spite of national government transportation and other funding incentives, unless mandated by the random acts of state governments, such as in California, Minnesota, and Oregon.


James Madison would probably relish the opportunity to participate in strengthening regional cooperation. He wrote extensively on the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which had created the governance mechanism that lacked "clout" in its time. The Articles fostered discussion on common issues, but provided little real power to pursue common actions among the very independent states.

By 1786, the repeated failure of the states to come together to address common challenges prompted George Washington and other founding fathers to call for reexamining the Articles of Confederation. Interestingly, it was a regional issue, riparian rights on the Potomac River, which was frequently cited to make the case for this reexamination. Most of the states appeared to desire minor adjustments in the Articles, but Madison concluded that a new social contract needed to be negotiated among the states. He explored all of the historic governance models, going back to Greece and Rome, compared them to the Articles of Confederation, and proffered arguments that probably succeeded beyond his grandest hopes, in the design and adoption of a new charter, the United States Constitution.


To succeed, however, he had to challenge the conventional wisdom of his times, that Charles de Secondat Montesquieu was correct and republics worked best in small geographic areas. Only in small republics were elected representatives close enough to the people who elected them. Madison countered that the states were too small to represent the breath of interests found across the new United States. He drew upon Adam Smith’s argument in the Wealth of Nations that the economic interaction in a larger marketplace produces better products than in a smaller one. Similarly, he argued that the inclusiveness of a larger republic would pressure state representatives to rise above their petty biases to solve common challenges.


But only if the larger republic has the "clout" to address common challenges. As a result, the delegates in Philadelphia devoted most of their time to designing the mechanisms and enumerating the powers and resources of the national government, and then wisely reserved the balance for the states.

Over two centuries later, our regions are struggling with the same governance dilemma. Like the founding fathers, community leaders and citizens have created an abundance of mechanisms to address regional challenges. Some resemble the Articles of Confederation, such as regional councils of governments, though at times they have secured powers from state and national governments, such as to prepare the plans required to receive national transportation funding. Some have substantial powers, but usually only for narrowly-defined tasks, such as delivering water, sewer, and transit services. Some are created by state and national governments, especially in crises, such as the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority when the Atlanta region could not adopt a common strategy for addressing its transportation and related air quality challenges. But few can claim to have the "clout" to address the toughest challenges with confidence.


Like Madison, I have spent a considerable amount of time over the last few years exploring existing and potential ways to breathe life into regional cooperation. And, like Madison, I have concluded that regions will not work, will not be able to address tough regional challenges effectively, until they have their own charters, ones that define the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of citizens, local governments, and regional mechanisms, and the means for financing and monitoring the initiatives to address regional challenges.


Designing, implementing, and monitoring regional charters requires sufficient individuals -- community leaders and citizens -- declaring their regional citizenship and demanding such charters and holding them accountable. In addition, regional charters will never succeed unless empowered by state government legislation and supported by national government incentives.


Once adopted, regional charters will need to be tested through negotiating and implementing compacts to shape future growth. No region can achieve excellence until it can shape sustainable, equitable, cooperative, renewable growth region wide. Finally, regional charters would benefit from, and might even require the establishment of, state, national, and even global councils of regions that facilitate exchange of regional experiences and advocate for state, national, and international support of regional charters.



I would like to make a toast to all fellow regionalists for the New Year, 2009. May we resolve to clothe our regions in the charters needed to address the toughest challenges! And become loved, or at least liked, by community leaders and citizens!

***

Bill Dodge assists community leaders and citizens to build their capacity to address regional challenges. He is the former Executive Director of the National Association of Regional Councils, author of Regional Excellence, and can be reached at WilliamRDodge@aol.com.

Regional Community Development News - December 31, 2008 [regions_work]

Happy New Year!

Contents

Top Regional Community stories … 1. – 9.

U.S. Regional Communities - sub-State, State or multi-State – news articles …10.01 - .29

Other Regional Community News for Our Local Planet … 11.01 - .28

Blogging about Regional Communities … 12.01 - .12

Announcements and Regional Links … 13.01 - .10

Financial Crisis and Government …14.02

Custom search: region, regions, regional communities … 15.

“Shovel Ready” Versus “Renewable Future” by Bill Dodge, Regional Excellence

Regional Excellence


“Shovel Ready” Versus “Renewable Future”

by Bill Dodge

New York’s Governor David Paterson has joined a chorus of state, regional and local leaders calling for a federal economic stimulus program to finance “shovel ready” public works. He is referring to the road, bridge, sewer, water and other public works projects that have already been designed and lack only financing for their implementation.

And the numbers are impressive! The governors came up with a list of $136 billion, the mayors $73 billion, and the regional councils of governments, $25 billion. Clearly, the need for public works has far outstripped the resources to build them.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration and Congress are searching for a response to an economy that has slipped into recession, not only domestically, but globally.

Investing in public works is an especially attractive part of the response. First, it can provide jobs for those who have lost them. Second, it can provide the public works needed to grow a business or raise a family. And, it has a track record of proven success in previous economic declines.

However, this economic downturn has some unique characteristics. It had its share of excessive economic behavior, such as in housing, like earlier downturns. If that was the extent of the challenge, moderating this excessive behavior should restore economic health.

Unfortunately, this economic downturn appears to have even more triggered by excessive cultural behavior. Since the last century, we have been increasingly consuming on credit, depending on foreign oil, borrowing from the world, shrinking the middle class, using an unsustainable share of natural resources, and rarely looking beyond the current quarter. We have not saved, invested in alternative energy, balanced our trade, moderated rich-poor polarization, recycled natural resources, or addressed global warming and other long term challenges.

We have been unwilling to make the cultural changes that will make us energy self-sufficient, climate change adaptable, and economically equitable -- to become a renewable nation. And, until we do, it appears that it will be extremely difficult to restore economic health.

Now, how is this important to investing in public works as part of the federal economic stimulus program?

Do our “shovel ready” public works projects reflect the culture of the past or the future? Do they assume the endless expansion into undeveloped greenfields, a pattern of development that has resulted in underutilized public works, excessive gas consumption, and destruction of the forests and farmlands that are needed to address global warming? Or, the continuing abandonment of distressed urban and rural areas, from Detroit to Appalachia?

Do the "shovel ready" projects accept the continued unwillingness of some local governments to cooperate with their neighbors to provide shared, cost-effective water, sewer, transit, and other services? Do they require us to consume even more foreign oil, natural resources, and financing to build and operate them? Will they be built by workers who are paid less than a living wage?

A modest proposal. What if the federal economic stimulus was a two-phase effort?

Instead of financing major public works projects in 2009, invest in labor-intensive public works activities that reinforce the cultural values that will strengthen our economy. Fix up existing public works that are facing shortened lives due to lack of maintenance. Weatherize public buildings and assist homeowners to do the same. Recycle natural resources, such as converting pine trees destroyed by bark beetles into fuel for pellet stoves. These labor intensive public works activities will not only assist the unemployed, they will restore the public, and private, works needed to rebuild our economy.

Also, in 2009, provide funds to revisit “shovel ready” public works projects to make sure they are the “renewable future” projects of tomorrow. Invest in modifying the existing projects or developing new projects to test alternative approaches to renewability.

Then, in 2010, start financing these “renewable future” projects. Continue financing the labor-intensive public works activities, but find a balance between short-term activities and long-term projects. And spread the financial stimulus over the next few years, to identify the models from each round of projects that merit replication in future rounds.

Who should take the lead on implementing these economic stimulus activities? What about regional councils of governments (COGs)? COGs have representatives of all local governments and work with state and federal governments. They cover areas that are large enough to assure that public works activities are not duplicative and represent the best investments for the future.

There are approximately 600 regions nationwide. Give each of them a block of money now to quickly design and implement the labor-intensive public works activities and revisit the “shovel ready” projects. Then, give each of them a larger block of money in 2010 to begin implementing the “renewable future” projects. Provide flexibility for groups of regions to work together with states to address larger scale projects.

Why take this approach now? History is likely to conclude that the federal economic stimulus program will be an once-in-a-lifetime investment in public works. If we squander this investment on public works of the past, we can not expect to see similar resources available for investments in public works of the future.

Let’s make sure “shovel ready” is “renewable future”!

***

Bill Dodge assists community leaders and citizens to build their capacity to address regional challenges. He is the former Executive Director of the National Association of Regional Councils, author of Regional Excellence, and can be reached at WilliamRDodge@aol.com.