Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 13-21
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 13... ...
Yet many metropolitan areas are also characterized by a set of problems so severe that some see them as threatening the long-term viability of American society. Although public concerns focus on the problems of central cities, the problems are metropolitan in scope.
|
From page 14... ...
The term "metropolitan governance" also deserves some initial discussion. The committee defined metropolitan governance broadly to include governmental institutions within metropolitan areas, processes (the way in which groups participate, decisions are made, resources are allocated, and activities undertaken in metropolitan areas)
|
From page 15... ...
Nevertheless, there is a large, interrelated set of problems in urban America that has not been addressed very effectively either by local governments in metropolitan areas or by the broader system of metropolitan governance. The most important feature of these problems, in the context of American values, is the high degree of inequality of opportunity, as evidenced by the striking disparities in measures of well-being among communities in metropolitan areas (and particularly between central cities and their suburbs)
|
From page 16... ...
Individuals who live in poor communities or high-poverty neighborhoods are disadvantaged because they live there; their opportunity structure is more restricted and constrained than that of a similarly endowed person living in a middle-class area. It is a widely shared belief in American society that individuals should have an equal chance of taking advantage of and developing their inherent talents and capabilities.
|
From page 17... ...
Cities of international significance can be divided into several tiers: the first tier consists of world cities, such as New York, Tokyo, and London; a second tier, with substantial influence over large portions of the world economy, includes the U.S. cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.; a third tier, with more limited or specialized international functions, includes Houston, Miami, and San Francisco; and a fourth tier consists of cities of national importance with some transnational functions, including Boston, Dallas, and Philadelphia (Knox, 1997~.
|
From page 18... ...
At the same time, the need to remain competitive in an international economy has limited the redistributive abilities of cities and metropolitan areas. These factors, combined with the constitutional fact that local governments are creatures of state government, have placed renewed emphasis on states as critical players in addressing unequal opportunities at the metropolitan level.
|
From page 19... ...
The fiscal problems of central cities also adversely affect suburbs and their residents when they result in underexpenditure for purposes for which the entire region benefits. Such purposes include maintenance of the components of the city infrastructure that constitute a part of the regional infrastructure system, such as major surface transportation routes, bridges, and water distribution systems; elementary and secondary education, which prepares city residents to be part of the metropolitan area's labor force; and cultural institutions located in and financed at least partly by the central city but that serve a regional function or are regionally utilized, such as museums, zoos, and the main public library.
|
From page 20... ...
Not only are the problems of central cities and of unequal opportunity serious, but also they are getting worse, which is surely another reason why they should command our attention. In 1990, central-city median income was only 77 percent of suburban median income compared with 89 percent in 1960, and central-city poverty rates were 2.4 times those of suburbs compared with 1.5 times in 1960.
|
From page 21... ...
Finally, the chapter examines disparities in the fiscal capacities of jurisdictions in the same manner, as special problems created by unequal spatial opportunity structures. Chapter 4 reviews various strategies that have been tried or proposed to alter the spatial distribution of population, reduce outcome disparities between residents of central cities and suburbs and between non-Hispanic whites and minority groups, reduce tax/service disparities among local jurisdictions within metropolitan areas, and improve metropolitan governance.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.