What's the Survival Formula For Our Second-Tier Cities?

 Smart states and cities, in today's knowledge economy, focus on great
urban universities, high-finance and high-tech firms that rely heavily on
drawing young professionals. But what happens to America's second-tier
cities?
     Can Seattle's global prosperity be shared with Spokane and Bellingham?
Will Chicago's economic vigor hold dividends for Milwaukee or Peoria? New
York City is an acknowledged international ``command and control'' center,
but what about Rochester and Buffalo?
     Now fresh light has been thrown on America's urban split. A
just-released report from the civic research group MassINC and the
Brookings Institution says the prospering Boston region can do a better job
of supporting such struggling outer-ring cities as Fall River, Worcester,
Springfield and Lawrence.
     ``Massachusetts,'' notes John Schneider of MassINC, ``has completed
one of the most successful transitions anywhere in the world from an
industrial to a knowledge-based economy, but the transformation remains
centered on Greater Boston -- and that's the problem.''
     Between 1970 and 2005, Boston and its immediate orbit of 75 towns
prospered in every area from financial services to high-tech health care,
adding 467,000 jobs, a 51 percent gain. But the so-called ``gateway
cities,'' from Lowell to New Bedford to Pittsfield, saw one factory after
another shut down. Collectively, they lost more than 11,000 jobs, about 3
percent of their job base.
     Today the Boston area, notwithstanding its big losses in the 2000
collapse of the national tech bubble, has per capita income 75 percent
above the gateway communities. For sheer poverty, Holyoke and Springfield
are among the nation's worst-off cities.
     Is the big disparity good for Boston? No way, says this new study. The
agglomeration of high-paying knowledge jobs in a relatively small patch of
close-in towns has produced some of the highest housing prices in the
nation. As a result, population is declining; there's danger of a major
regional worker shortage.
     What's more, Boston's disproportionate growth sparked a wave of
suburbanization across eastern Massachusetts, increasing traffic congestion
and engulfing many of the small towns and open countryside that literally
represent New England to the world.
     There's a compellingly obvious answer: Bring the gateway cities into
the new economy by channeling higher-tech businesses toward them. And use
them as a base for expanded, affordable middle-class housing. These cities
(BEG ITAL)want(END ITAL) to grow. Some, with commuter rail ties, are
positioned close enough to Boston to serve as bedrooms for the big city.
They have enough housing stock and physical space to add population without
sprawling. And they have growing immigrant populations anxious to be part
of the American Dream.
     It's an appealing vision, and Massachusetts' new governor, Deval
Patrick, tells me he embraces it wholeheartedly.
     But accomplishing it won't be easy. These cities' populations --
increasingly immigrants and minorities -- trail seriously in educational
levels and often basic language skills. Their schools need improvement. The
city governments have often been patronage havens and/or personal preserves
of old-line politicos. Standards of government accountability, transparency
and efficiency have often lagged, complicating efforts to draw new-era
industries.
     But there's a lot an enterprising state government can do to make
older cities more competitive, and the MassINC/Brookings report names
several strategies.
     One's to provide more generous state aid for the hard-pressed city
governments -- a proposal Gov. Patrick advances in his new state budget.
Another is to cut back the thicket of state rules and regulations that
hamper cities' decision-making. In return, the state would insist on cost
controls and using improved information technology to track cities'
services and encourage high-performance accountability systems.
     The cities would be encouraged to focus on updated infrastructure --
quality water and sewers, for example, and an attractive public
environment. And they'd be challenged to overcome the ``deal breakers''
that so easily frighten off companies looking for fresh locations -- fears
of higher costs, fragmented land ownership, thickets of local regulations,
or painfully extensive public hearings. And to collaborate -- joining the
regional economic coalitions now emerging, giving up the historic, stony
``go-it-aloneness'' of New England municipalities.
     The recovery formula emphasizes building up the educational and
language skills of residents. And putting a priority on improving community
colleges -- some of Massachusetts' are high quality, others lag national
standards.
     Last piece of the puzzle: broadband Internet service, critical for
large or small businesses to compete in the 21st century economy. Many of
the troubled gateway cities lack service, or face high rates; city
governments, says the report, need to struggle for nothing less than
universal, low-cost or free super-fast broadband.
     Maybe the time is ripe for state governments nationwide to focus hard
on the steps they can take to encourage their bypassed cities. After all,
why do we have state governments? And what's America without a Peoria, Fall
River or Spokane that really works?