Apparently, Massachusetts has 24 “Gateway Cities”, including Fitchburg, Pittsfield, and Springfield. As Gateways Cities, the State has spent hundreds of millions ($247 million on housing alone) to “revitalize these gateways. Which begs the question: gateways to what?
We need to accept the fact that some cities will never recover their former standing whether as industrial centers, mill towns, or fishing ports regardless of how much taxpayer money is spent attempting to do so. Over time, functions of all cities change relative to each other. Springfield was founded as an armory because British ships could not navigate up the Connecticut River. While its role as a major maker of munitions did lead to a thriving small machine tool industrial town, it has been on the decline for decades. No amount of money is going to bring Springfield back, and I emphasize back, to its past heydays. And there is really no functional objective that Springfield currently offers locationally that justifies continued subsidies.
Fitchburg was one of the nation’s leading centers of furniture production. I need say no more.
Perhaps some of the Massachusetts “Gateway Cities” have futures in a new economy. But spending millions of dollars on imaginary revitalization is an exercise in fantasy, an invitation to patronage, and an enormous waste of capital in a state whose trains don’t run on times and whose school systems are crumbling.
If we are going to put money into true growth cities, we should put it into those cities that are currently successful and thriving. This may sound counterintuitive but it is the success of these cities that will pull the train of success for the entire state.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim:
ReplyDeleteYour article is well reasoned. It is sad but true. I grew up in Pittsburgh when the mills still lined the rivers and ran 24/7. The city has since lost half of its population but keeps on reinventing itself and is a great place to live now. It has wonderful cultural centers and top notch universities. It is unthinkable to leave such an enormous area of our state to decay. What is to happen to the inhabitants left behind without the means or ability to get out? We supposedly live in an area filled with some of the smartest people in the world. Maybe it's time to take the thinking and planning completely away from the politicians and politically connected and place it in the hands of those whose only rewards and motivation will be in the form of salary plus commission for ideas which have been successfully implemented and knowing that they have contributed to the greater good. People go where the jobs are. Worcester is an example of a community working together with its institutions and corporations to create jobs. Why does public money reward success, incompetence and failure equally?
Pittsburgh is thriving again because leaders IN Pittsburgh rolled up their sleeves and made it so. And I believe that is what can happen in a handful of the gateway cities. Worcester is an excellent example. Schools need to come first, followed by cold hard facts--some cities do not have a role in the current economy. They are gateways whose gates no longer lead anywhere. Pouring money into them deceives the very people who live in them. Educate and Relocate.
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding. You make perfect sense. Hopefully, while people are migrating out, those left behind or who choose to stay will discover leaders IN their communities and leaders in themselves who will find a way to reinvent. There is always the possibility that those cities left behind could become bedroom communities to the gateway cities that do make it back. As an aside, I could not figure out how to post other than as Anonymous. Obviously I could use a little "educate".
ReplyDelete