Cities are solving our Government Crisis

[Westside Guy]

The Great Recession has left our nation with many different movements that are currently affecting our political structures.  Groups like Occupy and the Tea Party were both born out of the financial crisis, but as that the economy has slowly improved, we have been left with a government crisis.  You don't have to go far to find evidence that the American people feel that the federal government is stuck in gridlock and has been for several years.  This trend is likely to continue into the next administration as the Republicans are on the verge of Civil War and lack a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Another more long term that is likely to continue is the dwindling of funds and grants available for cities.  Long gone are the days where the federal government provided financial aid to cities and states in the search of a Great Society.  Whether you agree with these policies from the 1960s, or the radically different policies of the 1980s, it is true that cities today are expected to do more with less. 

It is in this fact that cities are solving the ineffectiveness of the higher levels of government.  As budgets tighten and people demand the same level or even more service than before, municipal governments and communities are finding less and less room for politics.  Across the country, civic leaders are now being judged based on their character and results of their administrations.  As ask you to look only to City of Jacksonville, and ask if Alvin Brown, or any Democrat, would have been elected 15 years ago.  Cities are more willing now to put aside politics to provide the services that the state and federal governments are now unwilling to fund.  And they are getting problems solved.  Across the country city governments are now the ones that are funding new infrastructure projects, passing sweeping legislation that create departments and tax districts, and even reaching out internationally to establish relations with other cities abroad.

And the cavalry isn't coming any time soon.  Cities are certain to be left to fend for themselves for at least the immediate future.  But as this trend continues, they are gaining more autonomy to do what they need to do to solve the problems that face their communities.  A side effect of this is the success of a metropolitan area now relies more on effective leadership, and not just in elected positions.  Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well.  Without this leadership, it is impossible to make countless county and city governments, businesses, and nonprofits to work together for the betterment of the region.  Cities that have found great leadership have seen economic and social growth.  Cities such as Denver, Boston, and Austin have had leaders that played to the strengths of the area.  This has made those cities competitive in a time when cities have less to spend.  Leadership is now the most important asset that local government can have, and it should be the most important objective of municipal communities.

[aldermanparklover]

The Great Recession has left our nation with many different movements that are currently affecting our political structures.  Groups like Occupy and the Tea Party were both born out of the financial crisis, but as that the economy has slowly improved, we have been left with a government crisis.  You don't have to go far to find evidence that the American people feel that the federal government is stuck in gridlock and has been for several years.  This trend is likely to continue into the next administration as the Republicans are on the verge of Civil War and lack a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Another more long term that is likely to continue is the dwindling of funds and grants available for cities.  Long gone are the days where the federal government provided financial aid to cities and states in the search of a Great Society.  Whether you agree with these policies from the 1960s, or the radically different policies of the 1980s, it is true that cities today are expected to do more with less. 

It is in this fact that cities are solving the ineffectiveness of the higher levels of government.  As budgets tighten and people demand the same level or even more service than before, municipal governments and communities are finding less and less room for politics.  Across the country, civic leaders are now being judged based on their character and results of their administrations.  As ask you to look only to City of Jacksonville, and ask if Alvin Brown, or any Democrat, would have been elected 15 years ago.  Cities are more willing now to put aside politics to provide the services that the state and federal governments are now unwilling to fund.  And they are getting problems solved.  Across the country city governments are now the ones that are funding new infrastructure projects, passing sweeping legislation that create departments and tax districts, and even reaching out internationally to establish relations with other cities abroad.

And the cavalry isn't coming any time soon.  Cities are certain to be left to fend for themselves for at least the immediate future.  But as this trend continues, they are gaining more autonomy to do what they need to do to solve the problems that face their communities.  A side effect of this is the success of a metropolitan area now relies more on effective leadership, and not just in elected positions.  Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well.  Without this leadership, it is impossible to make countless county and city governments, businesses, and nonprofits to work together for the betterment of the region.  Cities that have found great leadership have seen economic and social growth.  Cities such as Denver, Boston, and Austin have had leaders that played to the strengths of the area.  This has made those cities competitive in a time when cities have less to spend.  Leadership is now the most important asset that local government can have, and it should be the most important objective of municipal communities.

"Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well."

Who are THEY to tell ME what's best for ME?

[Tacachale]

The Great Recession has left our nation with many different movements that are currently affecting our political structures.  Groups like Occupy and the Tea Party were both born out of the financial crisis, but as that the economy has slowly improved, we have been left with a government crisis.  You don't have to go far to find evidence that the American people feel that the federal government is stuck in gridlock and has been for several years.  This trend is likely to continue into the next administration as the Republicans are on the verge of Civil War and lack a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Another more long term that is likely to continue is the dwindling of funds and grants available for cities.  Long gone are the days where the federal government provided financial aid to cities and states in the search of a Great Society.  Whether you agree with these policies from the 1960s, or the radically different policies of the 1980s, it is true that cities today are expected to do more with less. 

It is in this fact that cities are solving the ineffectiveness of the higher levels of government.  As budgets tighten and people demand the same level or even more service than before, municipal governments and communities are finding less and less room for politics.  Across the country, civic leaders are now being judged based on their character and results of their administrations.  As ask you to look only to City of Jacksonville, and ask if Alvin Brown, or any Democrat, would have been elected 15 years ago.  Cities are more willing now to put aside politics to provide the services that the state and federal governments are now unwilling to fund.  And they are getting problems solved.  Across the country city governments are now the ones that are funding new infrastructure projects, passing sweeping legislation that create departments and tax districts, and even reaching out internationally to establish relations with other cities abroad.

And the cavalry isn't coming any time soon.  Cities are certain to be left to fend for themselves for at least the immediate future.  But as this trend continues, they are gaining more autonomy to do what they need to do to solve the problems that face their communities.  A side effect of this is the success of a metropolitan area now relies more on effective leadership, and not just in elected positions.  Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well.  Without this leadership, it is impossible to make countless county and city governments, businesses, and nonprofits to work together for the betterment of the region.  Cities that have found great leadership have seen economic and social growth.  Cities such as Denver, Boston, and Austin have had leaders that played to the strengths of the area.  This has made those cities competitive in a time when cities have less to spend.  Leadership is now the most important asset that local government can have, and it should be the most important objective of municipal communities.

"Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well."

Who are THEY to tell ME what's best for ME?

Better question: WHO the hell are YOU?

[Westside Guy]

The Great Recession has left our nation with many different movements that are currently affecting our political structures.  Groups like Occupy and the Tea Party were both born out of the financial crisis, but as that the economy has slowly improved, we have been left with a government crisis.  You don't have to go far to find evidence that the American people feel that the federal government is stuck in gridlock and has been for several years.  This trend is likely to continue into the next administration as the Republicans are on the verge of Civil War and lack a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Another more long term that is likely to continue is the dwindling of funds and grants available for cities.  Long gone are the days where the federal government provided financial aid to cities and states in the search of a Great Society.  Whether you agree with these policies from the 1960s, or the radically different policies of the 1980s, it is true that cities today are expected to do more with less. 

It is in this fact that cities are solving the ineffectiveness of the higher levels of government.  As budgets tighten and people demand the same level or even more service than before, municipal governments and communities are finding less and less room for politics.  Across the country, civic leaders are now being judged based on their character and results of their administrations.  As ask you to look only to City of Jacksonville, and ask if Alvin Brown, or any Democrat, would have been elected 15 years ago.  Cities are more willing now to put aside politics to provide the services that the state and federal governments are now unwilling to fund.  And they are getting problems solved.  Across the country city governments are now the ones that are funding new infrastructure projects, passing sweeping legislation that create departments and tax districts, and even reaching out internationally to establish relations with other cities abroad.

And the cavalry isn't coming any time soon.  Cities are certain to be left to fend for themselves for at least the immediate future.  But as this trend continues, they are gaining more autonomy to do what they need to do to solve the problems that face their communities.  A side effect of this is the success of a metropolitan area now relies more on effective leadership, and not just in elected positions.  Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well.  Without this leadership, it is impossible to make countless county and city governments, businesses, and nonprofits to work together for the betterment of the region.  Cities that have found great leadership have seen economic and social growth.  Cities such as Denver, Boston, and Austin have had leaders that played to the strengths of the area.  This has made those cities competitive in a time when cities have less to spend.  Leadership is now the most important asset that local government can have, and it should be the most important objective of municipal communities.

"Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well."

Who are THEY to tell ME what's best for ME?

I think we can all agree that we benefit when we have civic minded leaders, even if they may only be civic minded to benefit themselves as well.  Everyone is better off when business leaders bring in more jobs, universities provide more education, and non profits help those in need.  What I am advocating for is leaders who do all of these things while considering the community at large.  This is also true of government leadership.  The difference is we expect it from our elected officials, but not always of other leaders in the community who make large impacts.  In short, they are not telling you what is best for you, they are just taking what is best for you and the rest of the community into consideration when they are making important decisions.

[aldermanparklover]

The Great Recession has left our nation with many different movements that are currently affecting our political structures.  Groups like Occupy and the Tea Party were both born out of the financial crisis, but as that the economy has slowly improved, we have been left with a government crisis.  You don't have to go far to find evidence that the American people feel that the federal government is stuck in gridlock and has been for several years.  This trend is likely to continue into the next administration as the Republicans are on the verge of Civil War and lack a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Another more long term that is likely to continue is the dwindling of funds and grants available for cities.  Long gone are the days where the federal government provided financial aid to cities and states in the search of a Great Society.  Whether you agree with these policies from the 1960s, or the radically different policies of the 1980s, it is true that cities today are expected to do more with less. 

It is in this fact that cities are solving the ineffectiveness of the higher levels of government.  As budgets tighten and people demand the same level or even more service than before, municipal governments and communities are finding less and less room for politics.  Across the country, civic leaders are now being judged based on their character and results of their administrations.  As ask you to look only to City of Jacksonville, and ask if Alvin Brown, or any Democrat, would have been elected 15 years ago.  Cities are more willing now to put aside politics to provide the services that the state and federal governments are now unwilling to fund.  And they are getting problems solved.  Across the country city governments are now the ones that are funding new infrastructure projects, passing sweeping legislation that create departments and tax districts, and even reaching out internationally to establish relations with other cities abroad.

And the cavalry isn't coming any time soon.  Cities are certain to be left to fend for themselves for at least the immediate future.  But as this trend continues, they are gaining more autonomy to do what they need to do to solve the problems that face their communities.  A side effect of this is the success of a metropolitan area now relies more on effective leadership, and not just in elected positions.  Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well.  Without this leadership, it is impossible to make countless county and city governments, businesses, and nonprofits to work together for the betterment of the region.  Cities that have found great leadership have seen economic and social growth.  Cities such as Denver, Boston, and Austin have had leaders that played to the strengths of the area.  This has made those cities competitive in a time when cities have less to spend.  Leadership is now the most important asset that local government can have, and it should be the most important objective of municipal communities.

"Business people, university presidents and others that make decisions that affect a city must be more vigilant than ever to ensure that they are doing not only what is best for them, but for their community and city as well."

Who are THEY to tell ME what's best for ME?

I think we can all agree that we benefit when we have civic minded leaders, even if they may only be civic minded to benefit themselves as well.  Everyone is better off when business leaders bring in more jobs, universities provide more education, and non profits help those in need.  What I am advocating for is leaders who do all of these things while considering the community at large.  This is also true of government leadership.  The difference is we expect it from our elected officials, but not always of other leaders in the community who make large impacts.  In short, they are not telling you what is best for you, they are just taking what is best for you and the rest of the community into consideration when they are making important decisions.

The vaguer, larger point I'm making with my statement is I don't want business people to inject politics or ideology into their business models - this perverts the market and brings corruption into government. Just make your money, try not to piss too many people off while doing it and don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the slack for your shortcomings.

The last thing any of us want is for a group of people (with means) to feel an artificial privilege because they they think they've been doing us favors. What you are petitioning for are benevolent rulers to be responsible for you. This is America, we look after our own needs.