Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 29, 1994 TAG: 9406010053
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Alan Sorensen
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
I can cite evidence to support this premise. A 1992 report published in the Business Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, for example, studied population and income growth in 28 metropolitan areas.
The conclusion: "Decline in central cities is likely to be associated with slow-growing suburbs. Even if the most acute problems associated with urban decline do not arise in the suburbs, central city decline is likely to be a long-run slow drain on the economic and social vitality of the region."
Why isn't the shared destiny of cities and their surrounding suburbs more widely appreciated? One reason is that suburbs benefit in the short run by attracting growth that leaves the city. Later, suggests the study's author, "the negative impact may be unrecognized by suburban residents because the suburb is performing so much better than its declining central city counterpart."
In other words, metropolitan areas with declining cities are performing poorly, on average, in comparison with metropolitan areas with healthy cities, but this may go unnoticed. Suburbanites mistakenly compare themselves with their city neighbors, instead of with the real competition - other regions thriving in a global contest for good jobs.
Thus did Roanoke County officials, during the city-county merger debate of 1990, myopically contend that Roanoke merely wanted to foist its social burdens onto the suburbs. If you look at the sources of our region's jobs, image, cultural activities and business tax revenues, and consider the long-term trends, I believe a strong case can be made that the county, with its increasingly costly residential tax base, needs the city at least as much as the city needs the county.
I've made these arguments before, will continue making them. To me, they're convincing.
But they are also, I must admit, convenient.
The premise of regionalism is a useful assumption for editorial writers, because our arguments usually try to appeal to self-interest. The idea that the region will prosper or decline as a whole allows us to say, in effect: You should care what happens to others in these parts - not because they're fellow human beings and neighbors, but because what happens to them may somehow personally affect you, your quality of life, your prospects.
Thus do we spare ourselves the need for moral exhortation. Most of us are less comfortable with preaching than with counting costs and benefits anyway, and we assume moralizing is less persuasive. (Why fight teen pregnancy? Of course - so taxpayers can avoid the resulting welfare costs.)
We share the modern faith that individuals pursuing enlightened self-interest eventually usher in the greater good. As editorial writers, I suppose we aim to enlighten self-interest.
All of which is fine as far as it goes, except for two flaws in the ointment.
The first is that "ought" does not derive as neatly from "is" as we might like to pretend. Informing other people's self-interest, for example, often ignores the self-interest of the informer. Here's a fact: Fifty percent of Roanoke city schoolchildren come from families with incomes below the poverty line. Is this an indicator of prejudice? You bet. I am predisposed to favor bleeding-heart lamentations about this fact, over arguments rationalizing suburban indifference to it.
Moreover, to argue that a problem matters is not to prove that a particular response (even regionally organized) will solve it.
The second flaw in the appeal to self-interest is that it risks reducing readers to consumers. This is an error akin to the way politicians treat the electorate when they campaign with snake-oil advertising and constant poll-taking - promising voters what goodies will be given to them, rather than what good will be asked of them.
People aren't just consumers. They're also citizens. Proud people care about their communities and country, the promise of their children, the prospects of future generations. If some among us feel left out of the American dream, if the divide between races and classes widens, that should be an affront to all of us. That should engage our moral sensibilities - as perhaps editorials should more often.
I guess what I'm saying is this. The argument for regional understanding, planning and cooperation should ask us, most of the time, to make calculations - but, some of the time, to consult our consciences. In either case, especially if the calculations extend far enough into the future, I believe the conclusion usually will come out the same.
by CNB