Typically I like to write posts that celebrate the good things going on in communities across the State of Michigan. This serves to present a different dialogue and change the conversation from the usual norm. It is an honest effort to showcase the efforts of local leaders, from public officials, to those in business and non-profit as well as caring and thoughtful residents and neighborhood activists. But it is not meant to gloss over the challenges facing folks such as these and our communities in general. So without further delay, it is time for a reality check.

I have heard it said many times in many places over the last couple of months that Michigan is coming out of its recession. This is due to a number of factors, from the federal bailout of the auto industry to aggressive and sometimes controversial actions at the state level as well as efforts at the local level. As is usually the case it is never any one thing.

But despite all the talk about Michigan’s economic recovery there is no amount of relentless, positive action that can disguise the fact that many of our communities, large and small, still face, and without immediate policy changes will continue to face, fiscal distress.

We are all too familiar with the financial troubles besetting Detroit. However, a recent article in the on-line publication, the Bridge, brings to light the financial issues facing other cities across Michigan. And these are communities that are generally considered to be well run.

The article features a study by a private sector firm, Munetrix, which found dozens of communities around the state, from SE Michigan to SW Michigan and Northern Michigan facing financial stress.

Examples include Kalamazoo, which I had the opportunity to visit not too long ago. I was told by local officials and city staff that deep cuts to the budget will continue without some changes and as the article points out they are seeking to trim their work force through early retirement. Our state capitol city, Lansing is also facing some tough times as they try to close a $5 million deficit.

As the article notes, and my organization, the Michigan Municipal League has been pointing out for some time; it has been a series of events over the past decade that is taking their toll on local revenues.  This includes lower property values, foreclosures, $6 billion in lost state revenue sharing, limitations of Proposal A and of course the rising costs of pension and health care benefits.

 There is also a second part to this reality check and that is the worsening relationship between the state and local units. As noted above over the past decade, the state (legislatures and governors) has reduced revenue sharing payments by a total of $6 billion in order to shore up other areas of the budget. The new revenue sharing program, known as the “Economic Vitality Incentive Program” has, since its inception two years ago, only become more burdensome and less helpful as local leaders continue to do all they can to collaborate with other communities.

And this leads to some thoughts about another article I came across last week, noting that worsening relationships between state and local governments is not just confined to Michigan.

The article, titled “States Power Grab Quashes Local Governments’ Authority” is written by David Morris, director of the Public Goods Initiative at the “Institute for Local Self-Reliance. In it, he notes that Republican governors and legislatures are pre-empting and abolishing the authority of communities to protect their residents’ health and welfare.

• Earlier this year Wisconsin passed a law eliminating the authority of cities, villages and counties to require public employees to live inside city limits. Michigan banned local residency requirements for police and fire employees many years ago.
• A few weeks ago Kansas enacted a law prohibiting cities, counties and local government units from requiring private firms that contract with them to pay more than the state minimum wage or to require other benefits and leave policies.
• The Florida House recently voted to pre-empt local governments from enacting “living wage” and “sick time” ordinances. It would overrule counties, like Miami-Dade and Broward, which require companies they contract with to pay wages higher than the federal minimum wage.
• In November 2010, Pittsburgh became the first U.S. city to ban fracking within city limits.  In February 2012, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law allowing fracking in all parts of the city, in essence abrogating cities’ traditional zoning powers to protect against noise, odors and industrial dangers.
• 19 states (including Michigan) severely restrict or abolish the right of local governments to build their telecommunications networks.

Now I don’t know about you, but I am fascinated to learn that these actions are occurring in Republican states.  And while it is true that over the course of our country’s history court cases have made it clear that municipalities are creatures of the state, it is also true that there has been much said, a lot of it critical, about the federalist nature of our system of government. And with over 300 million people now part of our great nation, it is hard to argue that some form of consistency is needed.

But, consistency in thought and action is also needed from those who argue against federalism in terms of the relationship between states and local governments.  In Michigan, time is of the essence. Local communities need a partner, not a parent, to work with them to ensure that quality services are not just maintained but enhanced. At the end of the day, this means resources must be made available through a system of governance and finance that makes sense for the 21^st century.  Without such a platform, the economic momentum we are beginning to gather will surely stall as discerning workers and business will go elsewhere to find the quality of life they say is so important to their well being.

Anyone who recognizes this particular saying will recall it as the refrain from Sargent Joe Friday of the once popular police series, Dragnet.  I title this particular blog in that manner because one of my primary goals these days is to get people to understand the facts about our society and the impact these facts have on public policy decision making.  

Having attended the recent AARP “Aging in Place” conference (which the Michigan Municipal League and others co-sponsored), the message and strategies that my organization and others have been advocating about the need to invest in building vibrant communities was once again affirmed not by political or special interest rhetoric, but by facts. 

Demographic and market research surveys presented by a number of speakers prove out that the trends that were identified several years have not changed. And unless policy makers truly understand what is occurring, they will continue to use scarce resources to make the same bad investments as they have in the past. So here, they are…just the facts.

Census figures continue to show that as compared with the United States as a whole, Michigan has a greater percentage of those aged 65 and older (15% to 13%) and less people in the 18-34 years age bracket (22% to 24%).  Nothing we didn’t already know. But we need to slice into the numbers further to show what is occurring. 

Michigan also has less in the way of younger singles/couples (18% to 24%), less in the way of families (29% to 30%), and more in the way of empty-nesters/retirees (53% to 46%).  Let’s keep digging.  deeper. 

We hear a lot of talk about the need to accommodate families. And yet, census figures show that households with children in Michigan make up barely 32% of our population. And of that number, only 20.4% of Michigan households are those that have a married couple with children.  Let me repeat that, barely one-fifth of our state’s population is married couples with children!  

 If not families, then what is the make-up of Michigan’s 21^st century households. The fact of the matter is that a large majority of Michigan’s population, 61.8%, is made up of one or two-person households. National figures show the same. About one-third of all households across the country are those with children, and that number is project to fall to 25% over the next 20 years. 

So why is it that policy makers concentrate on a picture of society from the “Leave it to Beaver” days? 

Overall the demographics are clear, the two largest groups in American society today are baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and millennials (born between 1977 and 1996).  But perhaps, the interesting piece of this puzzle is that those baby boomers and the millennials have provided the same answers time and again as to what they’re looking for in a community.  And, it comes down to affordable housing, transportation options, safe/walkable streets, open spaces and parks, convenient shopping and services and cultural amenities.

 We don’t have much time folks. Other states are well aware of these trends as well and many have taken or are taking actions to work with leaders in the public, private and non-profit sectors to invest in building communities for all ages, not just any one particular demographic. We need to get to busy.

For more information check out:

MML Center for 21st Century Communities

AARP Public Institute for Livable Communities

MIPlace Partnership Initiative

Michigan Office of Services to the Aging Community for a Lifetime

Well it’s the start of a new year, and as with any new year it comes with great anticipation of what might be.  And what might be always starts with us as individuals. That is why I was excited to see a series of articles in the Lansing State Journal featuring viewpoints from several individuals who are high on Lansing.  From Chamber Director Tim Daman, continued recognition about the power of talent and young professionals in creating prosperity. Danielle Robinson of Jackson National Life Insurance reminds us about the importance of a strong core city.  She has committed herself and her family to not just working in one, but living there as well. As a matter of fact there are more than half a dozen articles from Lansing area young professionals discussing what brought them here and what keeps them here today. The themes in each are consistent… collaboration, creativity, a diverse economy being built around entrepreneurs and young talent.

Of course, what is happening on the ground in communities often outpaces what some policymakers seem to think is important to creating economic growth. At the state level that has meant a focus on lowering the cost of doing business through changes to tax policy, labor law, and regulations. However, there are many who believe that only by raising earnings will we create prosperity in Michigan.

One of those who take this view is Lou Glazer, co-founder and president of the non-partisan think tank, “Michigan Future”. In a recent interview with Detroit Free Press Deputy Editorial Page Editor, Brian Dickerson, Glazer argued that it is earnings, not business costs that we should be using to measure economic success. And if we want to increase earnings, we need to recruit and keep talent and if we want to do that, Glazer argues that we should be investing in things such as education and cities, two items that have increasingly been found to correlate with keeping talent at home and creating economic prosperity.

As I noted at the start of this piece, a new year brings with it anticipation of what might be.  It does little good if your unemployment rate is among the lowest in the country, but so is your per-capita income and standard of living.  No, if we want to create prosperity we must be about investing. Such programs as the Michigan Municipal League “Center for 21st Century Communities” and the new “MIPlace Initiative” offer much in the way of guideposts,  Policymakers in other states, cities and countries have understood the importance of investing for far longer than we. I do not want to be known as living in “Michissippi”. Its a new year. Its time to get to work.

One of the eight assets of the MML’s Center for 21st Century Communities (21c3) programs is multiculturalism. Its the best way we could think of stating that being welcoming to all is as important as anything when it comes to communities prospering in the 21st century.

And someone who can be considered one of the forerunners in the discussion of “place”, Richard Florida, recently penned a article on the subject. It can be found in theatlanticcities.com, a on-line ezine from “The Atlantic” magazine. If you’re interested in issues involving cities, you should definitely have this in your twitter feed.

The article, titled “The Geography of Talent” discusses how places that are open to new ideas attract creative people from around the globe, broadening both their technology and talent capabilities, gaining a substantial economic edge.  Talent and technology are Florida’s other “T’s” for creating prosperous communities.

Florida notes that recent studies indicate that half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have at least one foreign born person as a founder.  Florida notes that ”Tolerance  -  and openness to diversity and inclusiveness – is not an afterthought or something that happens when communities get rich. It is a key element of the new economic development equation.

Florida recently released a 10th anniversary revsied edition of his original work on the rise of the creative class. While one may not always agree with what he has to say, his work does provide for some thought provoking conversation.