Pittsburgh the Next "Oasis" for BosWash Refugees?

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

To be more clear, Metro is basically limited to transportation and land-use planning--they don't have authority over other stuff, such as schools. I do think including land-use planning in the portfolio is very useful, however, since it really goes hand in hand with transportation and the relevant policies can either enforce each other or undermine each other depending on whether or not they are coordinated.

there's probably a need for a statewide initiative in for land use. I believe the vaunted portland system was actually a state initiative. lancaster had a fairly forward thinking plan to address land use by banking farm land but it lacks funds to purchase land.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

A little smaller, but yes. However, they are both exceptionally small when compared to most other central cities.

just nothing that prevents boston from functioning. of course, if pittsburgh had 100k more people, it would comprise a larger proportion of the pop.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And the City of Pittsburgh actually faces two serious problems in terms of political weight: not only is it exceptionally small in relative size, but it is also only the second-most important city in the state, with the most important city being much larger, both because the Philly metro is much larger but also because the City-County of Philly is a more normal size.

due to PA politics, it's very difficult for any city to dominate the state's politics (I'm sure there's a good and bad side to this). setting aside the last 8 years with a Philadelphian as governor, Philadelphia doesn't exactly have undue influence unless it has the support of it's collar counties. I'm sure the political set up in PA is why there is no transportation funding fix despite the top two metros representing so much of the state's population (PA is more balanced in the 1-2 scenario than NYS' NYC-Buffalo combination). Of course, transportation approaches that work, anywhere in the country, seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

there's probably a need for a statewide initiative in for land use. I believe the vaunted portland system was actually a state initiative.

I think the exact sequence in Portland was first a statewise ballot initiative created the authority, and then there was a home-rule charter process that established the governance. And then the governance was recently modified again somewhat (I believe they eliminated an executive position).

Anyway, it would definitely take action at the state level to do something similar with the SPC.

just nothing that prevents boston from functioning.

The issues are a little more subtle than just functioning or non-functioning.

Obviously the City of Pittsburgh can function on some level, but it also has to interact with a lot of other players on various issues. One issue CONNECT addresses is just the difficulty of coordinating on a purely bilateral basis with all the neighboring municipalities: by bringing them all together on a regular basis, they can get a lot more accomplished in terms of agreeing among themselves.

And that notion extends to interactions between all of the CONNECT municipalities and other players: speaking with a single, coordinated message (and someday maybe even delegating some provisional deal-making authority to a common agent) could make it easier for the CONNECT municipalities to promote preferred policies. This is also Lobbying 101 stuff. You'd almost always rather go into a meeting representing more people, more votes, more money, more elected officials, and so on rather than less. For fairly obvious reasons, the bigger the interests you represent, the more access and influence you tend to get.

Again, none of this is meant to imply that the City is somehow completely non-functioning without CONNECT. It is just a way for not just the City but also these other communities to coordinate their actions in furtherance of common purposes.

of course, if pittsburgh had 100k more people, it would comprise a larger proportion of the pop.

Sure, but so what? It can't magically wish into being 100K more people within its existing borders, and it probably can't annex its way to that result either (the City is pretty small geographically for a major central city, which is part of why it is small in population).

But it can actually coordinate with its neighbors through CONNECT. So it makes sense to do that, as opposed to thinking idly about things it can't actually do.

Philadelphia doesn't exactly have undue influence unless it has the support of it's collar counties.

This isn't an attack on the influence of Philly. Philly, as I documented above, is a normal-sized central city. And it is a larger metro than Pittsburgh anyway, and that's not its fault. But that doesn't mean the core area of Pittsburgh doesn't have LESS influence than it should have--not because Philly is doing something wrong, but because the core of the Pittsburgh area is chopped up into so many municipalities.

I'm sure the political set up in PA is why there is no transportation funding fix despite the top two metros representing so much of the state's population

I think it is a contributing factor. There is an awful lot of dismissiveness and downright hostility to the City within various parts of the Pittsburgh Metro. Some of that is inevitable given the current nature of partisan politics, with one major party being explicitly anti-urban. But I think it is also possible in part because so much of the core area actually isn't in the City, and so people in the core area but outside the City don't necessarily see themselves as having aligned interests with the City.

Transportation policy is one of the areas in which this is relevant. The City isn't really a meaningful unit when it comes to transportation policy. But some people are in the habit of viewing PAT as a City thing, when it fact its economic and transportation importance extends far beyond the City. This is actually a very old problem--when PAT was first formed, there were a lot of officials in the suburbs who viewed it as part of an attempt by the City to undermine and ultimately appropriate their authority. That paranoia about PAT continues in various forms today.

Anyway, an entity like CONNECT can help bring together the municipalities with the strongest interest in transit while at the same time helping to disassociate transit issues in people's minds from just the City's interests. And to speak in terms of raw politics, CONNECT represents a potentially dominant force in the County, whereas the City does not. And if you can get CONNECT and the County on board with a pro-transit agenda, that is going to mean MUCH more at the state level--in fact much more at the federal level--than if all you have is the City.

I honestly don't see why any of this is controversial. Normal-size cities like Philly can automatically coordinate their policy and political activities for an equivalent portion of the core of their metro area. The City alone can't do that, but CONNECT could fill that gap. To me that seems like a pretty straightforward approach to this issue, and it has the virtue of being doable. In fact it is already being done.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The issues are a little more subtle than just functioning or non-functioning.

don't think I ever said CONNECT shouldn't exist.
urtherance of common purposes.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Sure, but so what? It can't magically wish into being 100K more people within its existing borders, and it probably can't annex its way to that result either (the City is pretty small geographically for a major central city, which is part of why it is small in population).

it just goes to show the line is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

This isn't an attack on the influence of Philly. Philly, as I documented above, is a normal-sized central city.

normal size may not have all that much to do with anything. outside Rendell, Philly might have had little influence at the state level, and the influence it had, was largely a result of the power of two politicians (Dwight Evans and Vince Fumo). Part of the reason Philadelphia had so little influence was the poisonous relationship it had with it's neighboring counties under virtually every mayor except Rendell and now Michael Nutter. The relationship between Pittsburgh and it's suburbs is very similar. FWIW, much has been made in Philly area about the loss of Dwight Evan's post as well as Fumo (now in federal prison)..with most powerful positions now belonging to politicians from western pa. As someone who thinks pork projects do surprisingly little for the health of a city, I don't think it's such a big deal. I'd also point out that Pittsburgh got its stadiums because Philly couldn't get its stadiums without including Pittsburgh (and indeed, the rest of the state, the law was written so that stadiums across the state could be funded form lancaster to altoona).
anyway, the point being, it's who, not how many that matter...particularly in PA.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think it is a contributing factor. There is an awful lot of dismissiveness and downright hostility to the City within various parts of the Pittsburgh Metro. Some of that is inevitable given the current nature of partisan politics, with one major party being explicitly anti-urban. But I think it is also possible in part because so much of the core area actually isn't in the City, and so people in the core area but outside the City don't necessarily see themselves as having aligned interests with the City.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Transportation policy is one of the areas in which this is relevant. The City isn't really a meaningful unit when it comes to transportation policy.

you're absolutely right (except where municipalities could fund service themselves rather than relying on state funds) but one could easily argue it's federal policy that has done the most damage. After all, with 80/20 match for roads, how much attention is the state going to worry about anything else that requires a larger match? and as I understand it, the biggest difference between funding today and 30 years ago is the lack of federal funds. It's just one more area where the feds have pushed fiscal responsibility to the state with little in the way of monetary help. PAT does have a bad rap not just among the region, but nationally. I'm not sure if it's been addressed or not. It seems like they're trying to change.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I honestly don't see why any of this is controversial. Normal-size cities like Philly can automatically coordinate their policy and political activities for an equivalent portion of the core of their metro area. The City alone can't do that, but CONNECT could fill that gap. To me that seems like a pretty straightforward approach to this issue, and it has the virtue of being doable. In fact it is already being done.

I don't necessarily agree with you that "normal and abnormal" is a particularly important factor, such organizations are important in both cases and the important factor is federal match/policy. I think CONNECT is a good thing, sorry if I gave you the impression I did not.