Basic HTML Version
24
The
PLAIN TRUTH
December 1971
Proposed Solution to
Urban Fiscal Problems
N EW
GOVERNMENTAL STRUC·
TURE: One suggestion for
solving chaotic government decen–
tralization has been the combining of
city, county, and suburban govern–
ments into
one jm'isdiction.
In recent years, Nashville, Miami
and Indianapolis have combined
county and city, with sorne noticeable
improvement. But little has really
been accomplished on a national
scale.
Others would rather see govern–
ment decentralized as a sort of
"checks-and-balances" arrangement.
Their fear is that too much power
would find its way into the wrong
hands.
Here are sorne other proposed
solutions:
Revemte Shat·ing:
The
U.
S. Presi–
dent has proposed, but postponed, a
plan for giving back to the cities a
sizeable portion of the money their
citizens paid in Federal income tax.
The drawbacks to revenue sharing
are, first of aU, that the Federal gov–
ernment has
no ¡·evemte to Jhare.
In
fiscal
1971
and
1972,
the Federal
branch may well sink into debt by
50
billion or more dollars! Secondly,
more money for urban dead-end
programs or local favoritism is not
the ultimate solution. More money
for cities may well mean more money
down the drain. Revenue sharing
only treats the surface effect - a
lack of money - without treating
the root cause, which is the
improper
fiJe
of monetary resources.
Federalism of Payments:
Absorp–
tion of welfare, medica! payments,
education and other social services by
the Federal government is similar to
revenue sharing, but more direct.
The payments would oot go to city
governments to disburse, but would
be administered nationally. This is
the intent of such plans as the Presi–
dent's Family Assistance Plan.
The advantages of these plans are
dear to states and cities - no longer
would cities and various states be–
come the haven of the sickly, elderly
or welfare cases. There would be one
national standard, therefore no mon–
etary lure for migrating from one
area to another.
The disadvantages of Federalism
are the impersonality, bureaucracy,
and defeatism engendered by a
government far removed from the
people. Local areas would not serve
people, but rather "Big Brother" in
Washington would. Also, expenses
would be appreciably larger for tax–
payers. Needless to say, this is politi–
cally unpopular.
Local plans, varying from city to
city, and state to state, include:
Urban RenetUal:
Change the
appearance of a city, and thereby
shape its character. Plow clown old
eyesores and erect modern multi-story
dwelling units for the poor. Don't
waste money servicing the existing
slum; tear it down and build a
"heavenly city."
Various plans of urban renewal
have been in existence for decades.
The result of the "federal bulldozer"
has beeo more aptly described as
"Negro removal" and the creation of
"high-rise slums."
More dwelling units have been
destro)'ed
than built, and the new
''heavenly city" looks like "the other
place" since the
Jlllm attitttde
of
those displaced has not been replaced
with a new way of thinking. After
all, a city is made up of HUMAN
BEINGS, as well as buildings, streets
and other physical items.
Urbm1 removal is
the plan of fur-
ther decentralization of c1ttes into
many autooomous sprawling suburbs.
Many city planners and urbanol–
ogists hope to break existing cities
into many "cells" of standard size,
similar commerce, and compatible
populace. These cities would be con–
nected by thin lines of transportation
crossing "green belts" of rural land,
all connected to a world city -
called
Ecmnenopolis
by one planner.
But such plans probably won' t
work. People in small cities prefer
the jobs, culture aód psychological
drive of the bigger cities. Few
people volunteec to populate rural
areas, since rural areas suffer a sim–
ilar degeneracy to that now present
in urban complexes.
There is as much poverty and
di–
lapidated housing in rural areas as
there is in urban sprawls. This is
part of the reason farm youth are
flocking to the cities. Nor is the
morality of rural areas necessarily
better.
New towm
provide the "clean
slate" most city planners prefer, with
the luxury of planning a dream city,
instead of trying to make the present
one work.
U.
S. Government officials
have predicted the need for
100
new
cities of
100,000
people ead1, and
10
cities of
1,000,000
people each
between now and the year
2000.
But who will volur¡.teer? The few
dozen "new towns" now existing
throughout the
U.
S. and Europe are,
for the most part, underpopulated.
Most people prefer commuting daily
to the big city, as in the case of the
two dozen "new towns" surrounding
London. Those who choose to live
there are the rich and the upper
middle class. The poor can't corn–
mute that far, much less buy expen–
sive new homes. And the poor are the
key
prob/emJ
of the "old town."
O