Initially it seemed ludicrous when Dunwoody set up a team focused on "urban renewal" both because it relabeled a suburban bettendorf and because we surely had not been urban long enough to "renew" anything. Clearly it was a money-grab going after federal funding.
That said, perhaps that IS the definition of urban: how addicted to federal dollars is the local government?
Andre Dickens, mayor of Atlanta, urban by any definition, fears the federal funding D-T's. He's worried about water infrastructure, saying "because the size of the problem is in the billions, and we can't expect local governments to repair billion-dollar infrastructure on our own financially." He should be worried as this comes across as entitlement. Here in Dunwoody, the city made a commitment to turf on a school's field, and now is claiming unexpected poverty. The mayor quoted in the blue bag rag says, "The fact that the bond failed, we’re now in a really big period of uncertainty because we don’t have any idea if there will be federal funding for infrastructure." Wow. Grass is infrastructure. Perhaps that is what you have to call it to get your hands on OPM.
So here's a thought exercise: what would happen if a particular local government, say Dunwoody, were instantly weened from the federal money teat? What "right-sizing" would occur? How? Would entire activities be shuttered? Everyone takes a haircut? The more dramatic the change, the more urban the government. On the upside, perhaps it would remove the outside influence of "free" money, putting an end to the political prostitution we suffer today.
Posts
