tv Lizabeth Cohen Saving Americas Cities CSPAN November 30, 2019 4:30pm-5:34pm EST
research, reports from various things from the council on foreign relations, occupy more times than these other books, unfortunately. >> march the responses of other members of congress by searching, what are you reading? book tv.org. >> time to begin so thank you all for joining us this evening. there's a number of familiar faces i see but also a number of people who are new to me. this is the first time, i want to extend a special welcome to you. dating back to 1791, we have a fabulous library, 14 billion manuscripts which is made available to the public for research and we host an ample number of programs and
exposition. this evening, a good friend of the historical society. i wanted to take a moment to greet everyone and without further ado, let's welcome him. [applause] >> good evening, thank you. he's put on a terrific number of programs here, including some conversations about where i first met him. it's a pleasure to have liz in the book. this is a book about a career based in the strong premise that cities were important and vital to this nation and country and
to this world. i'll tell you one story, which lets you know how i felt about him. i was about 25 years old, working in my first week in new york city and i had worked but had already left and lost the primary from there. i was anxious to work for him again. it happened on a very odd day, in an elevator. we were working on the 46th floor of a building inside the burlington house. we were the only tenants in the building at the time because the fisher brothers couldn't find anyone else who would sign a lease in a difficult time. the year was 1970. there were often with the state
agency because god knows what that might be like. that particular day, everyone was coming around, on the front page story about the extravagances, they set up the agency in his private building, on the 46th floor. it wasn't like a building in albany was greenwald anymore then the one there. which if you read the book, you'll know about it. everybody had the newspaper. i never met ed. i said to him, it was only that
age, this story is really not right. he said how does it make you feel to work here? i can only say one word, it was in an elevator and i said really? good. electrically but it took a book to make you feel that way. [laughter] back, in a nutshell, is it. you want him to be knowledgeable which is to say he was easy to work for but that's a different story. she received it from princeton university, university of california at berkeley. in 1986, she became a professor and moved to nyu where she became a professor. she resigned and 97, she's the
professor there. in 2011, in addition, she beca became, a job she did until 2018. i don't see anything about the new york post here. her books include making a deal, industrial workers in chicago, which one the bankrupt prize and was a finalist. another book was a consumer's republic for mass consumption in america. which is a widely used college based book. she's also a member of the american academy so i would only say one other word that is, you should read this book cover to cover. don't be cut off by the fact that it has 115 pages. [laughter] there's more content than most
footnotes than any book i have ever read. you have to be a scholar to get it. these are stories in and of themselves and they are worth reading. [applause] >> thank you, very much, tony. the headline about the office in new york talked about it. i want to thank tony, not only for introducing me today but for giving me many hours of interviews and you will see, if you read the book, how much i depend on his memory and his take an analysis of what went on, particularly in that period.
it's very nice to be here, thank you for coming. i see a lot of familiar faces, which is wonderful and some new faces. i'm glad for both. i look forward to sharing with you this book that i have worked on. for a long time, as some of you know because there's people here who have been helpful to me over the years, it's been approximately 14 years working on this book, 70 years for advanced study. that was a delay but actually, when i look back on it, i think it was also an inspiration in many ways because it really encouraged me to value writing for the public. we did a lot of writing at radcliffe. i want to start by giving you
some background of why i wrote this book. i'm not a biographer, emma social and political historian of the u.s. in the 20th century. this is a very different kind of book and what i've written before. i think maybe it's not on. i don't see the green might i once saw. it's not changing. we just put a new battery in. here we go. that's the one i want. this is a very different kind of
book than the one i wrote before. in most of my earlier work as a social historian, i was writing history of groups of ordinary americans. first and second generation immigrants, factory workers, african americans who were from the south to northern cities, middle-class homeowners and so forth. i kind of history generally referred to as history from the bottom up. so you might wonder why i've written biography about a powerful white male city filter like ed. at first i decided i want to do write a book about postwar world war two cities and i want to grapple with the changing of a physical building environment as well as how the changes came about. as i put in the books from i aim to understand who's in charge, who should have a say, who benefits and who pays the bill. i determined that focusing on
the life of someone who's personally engaged with the struggle for postwar american cities, a. when it was looming, a promising way to frame this book and engage readers, i hoped and what i thought was a very important story. consequently became attracted to this new challenge of putting an individual with power at the center of my book. i was writing history from the top down but i was trying to bring to it analysis, social historians have more concerns with the importance of social identities like class, gender, race and ethnicity and so forth. in my previous book, consumer's republic of politics of mass consumption in postwar america, i've written about mass suburbia is increasingly important in a residence or work and commerce
after world war ii. there i explored when i called the landscape of mass consumption. the carving of new housing department out of firms and the rise of shopping centers in the new highway intersections. in that book i implied that cities were being displaced by suburbia but that was it really what my subject was so i set out to write saving american cities. i wanted to understand better what this the socialization of america area actually meant for cities. particularly the older established ones that drive with industrialization and immigration in the 19th century an early 20th century. i also felt from the start that we have a limited fairly simplistic understanding of how
postwar american cities developed. they essentially aren't dismissing all efforts of re- development of disaster removal. that assumption seems to equate all interventions into cities with the work of billings like the notorious robert. in contrast, the ideal of postwar cities was articulated by jay jacobs, her message of anti- planning, hands-off, but neighborhoods and cities develop organically on their own. surely, i thought the story must be complicated than a class of these two very extreme and often caricatured positions. i certainly knew urban renewal from the late 1940s into the 70s had some deep flaws such as x-axis demolition and
president who were african-americans and other minorities, problematic belief in the importance of separating residences work and retail. be in the position of suburban car oriented schemes downtown and highways that flashed through neighborhoods. on the other hand, i also knew that many american cities were totally in trouble by the late 1940s and in need of help. after a decade and a half of a devastating depression followed by the deprivation of work time, cities were beating people and much more in the suburbs. my final motivation in writing this book was that as the city dweller in a city robert, i was increasingly alarmed with what i was seeing around me. the infrastructure as well as
the worsening crisis in affordable housing. everywhere in the u.s., low rent apartment are appearing, evictions and homelessness are growing and more than a third of american households are paying over 30% of their income on shelter and in many parts of the country, they are paying over 50%. a drastic divide has developed between cities that are foraging and cities that are failing. we have and have not among cities not only within them. so i wondered, how did we get here? i also wondered where were the resources that once made the u.s. a country highly functional mass transit, that has a significant here i think. up-to-date roads, bridges and tunnels. where was the commitment that led the nation to at least a third in the housing act of 19
1949, irresponsibility to provide decent home and living environment for every american family. might there not be something to learn from how we got to this place? i started looking around for an ideal subject for my book and i had checklist but most importantly, i thought an individual whose life would allow me to tell to intertwined stories, both how a person and a nation went about trying to idolize american cities and the mutual influence they have on each other and on american cities. it didn't take me long to stumble upon ed. he had a great influence during the 1960s and turning around a
long deteriorating boston. soon i discovered that he left an enormous cash stash of pape papers, he had given many interviews over the years so i would hear his own voice, even though he was no longer alive. no one else was writing a book about him. they are the ones who considered it and many of his associates from cities where he worked and i'm pleased to say a number of them are here to make were still very much alive, in touch with each other and even launched a website called friends of edward j loke and they proved a great resource to me. so i think you again for that. i was also fortunate that the family was still around and
supportive of my book without being intrusive and they were generous with their memories, contacts and their family papers. in time, i would figure out the span of his career offered me an amazing way of tracking urban redevelopment over more than four decades. he worked in new haven in the 50s boston in the 1960s, inc. new york state from 60s to the mid- 70s and south bronx to 1985. in the last 15 years of his life, he taught courses at mit, he ran a consulting business here boston, he tried unsuccessfully, to write memoi memoirs. he was a doer, not a writer. he died in 2000 and left his vineyard at not quite 79. why is he a compelling protagonist for this book?
he grow up caring deeply about cities. he was born in 1921 and raised in philadelphia, one of five children, widowed kindergarten teacher who did not have many financial resources. he went to yale college on scholarships and law school on the g.i. bill where he became deeply engaged with the city of new haven, particularly with his work, working class residents many of whom he got to know working in the yale dining halls. he later helped organize in yale's first labor union. when he married margaret, the daughter of the dean of yale college, he grew even deeper. love and admired by some, he believed by others who, from his earliest days, was most comfortable being what i
described as a rebel in the belly of the establishment beast. what i mean is that he repeatedly made his way into power and thought hard to improve what he judged to be efficiencies. the second point i would think about why he's a protagonist for me, he came to renewing cities as part of his progressive politics, which runs counter to many assumptions about who urban renewal is actually were. they are often portrayed as part of a pro-business rogue machine apple corporate investment over people. most stark contrast in that stereotype. he worked as a labor organizer in between is a labor lawyer. he fought mccarthyism" as at yale. he argued strenuously that
white, not black america had a race problem over some and he had no illusions that a private sector would do anything but prioritize over serving the public interest. in the late 1940s and 50s, he thought the problems of cities should be the next frontier of franklin roosevelt. he spent his federal dollars and it should not be applied to the challenge of saving american cities. typical pronouncement was the public sector created in boston in the public sector lost control. they believe early in his career that physical improvement in that environment could have larger social and political benefits. he discovered this in his surprising place. he served as special assistant to chester, the american ambassador to the new nation of india in the 50s and was
himself a former new dealer. in india, he observed the u.s. government and for foundation, investing in what was then called community development. improving the infrastructure of villages, housing, schools in hopes of creating more equal and remember this in the cold war, anti- communists. he subsequently brought lessons from what was then called the third world in first world american cities. this is not the usual direction that we assume and influence. the developing world was only the first example of how he learned from and participated in the transnational circulation of ideas about planning and architecture.
he had -- he learned many things, he is very much influenced by the social housing taking place in europe and later in his career, very much taken with the creation of european newtown which were a strategy to deal with the devastations that followed world war two and european countries and forth, upon returning from india in the fall of 1953, he began a career in urban redevelopment i was unfolded in four acts over four decades. as i follow his personal story in the book, we see the urban renewal process was not at all static but rather it continued to change over time. to experiment with different approaches in response with his own admitted failures and shifts in national policy and national policy and implement some surprisingly progressive ideas.
urban renewal in my telling is not one huge disaster of popular but a much more complex evolutionary response to american cities and places. i'm not going to take you through all the details, it's a long book as he indicated, though i should say one of the reasons why the footnotes are as robust as they are, my editor said i really like this book but you need to cut 30,000 words out. i was greeted with this news. i think it was good he told me to do that, i think the book is better for it but a lot of thought stuff ended up in the footnotes. i am going to give you the highlights of these four acts. acts one is the new haven. 1954 -- 1961, he teamed up with the newly elected democratic mayor, richard equally to try to
turn around a city in big trouble. industries were closing while many successful industries were no longer feeling loyal to new haven and abandoning their original homes. it was many good working-class jobs. this was happening just as african-americans were arriving from the south with hopes of making a better life and better living in the industrial north. at the same time, white residents moving to new haven suburbs in search of newer housing, better schools and other aspects of modern living, in some cases quite explicitly left a city that was becoming more nonwhite. and finally, the i 95 highway was threatening to bypass downtown new haven, which they knew would be the city's role as the retail center for the region. it was already facing competition from shopping centers that were opening up in
the suburbs. the important. >> to make is that cities like new haven were truly struggling. the agenda consisted of using available federal funding from the housing act of 1949 to 1954 to make new haven a national laboratory for physical renewal as well as innovative social programs. many, like head start and grab retraining would make their way into his great society. in the end, new haven got more dollars from the federal government than any other city and was widely viewed as ground zero for urban renewal. he had some successes but overall, the first phase turned out to be deeply problematic. in new haven and many other american cities for many reasons
i go into in the book. most agree, here and elsewhere, torqued on a poor but still viable low income neighborhood to put up apartments that were aimed at keeping the middle class in the city in a highway that would connect downtown to i 95 in the introduced a power oriented suburban like shopping center downtown. i also probe the way they consulted with community residents and i discovered they felt they were being democratically minded experts, who were protecting the public good but their approach was mostly from representatives of interest groups and community organizations. i call this approach democracy drawn from analysis of political scientists, robert developed in his classic work in political
science, which was based on new haven's urban renewal was called to government. so i conclude that they one during the 1950s with its massive clearance, democratic form of community consultation was deeply flawed. new haven as well as many other cities including boston was a destruction of immigrant west and, followed much the same pattern. act two. boston. 1960 -- 1967. 1960, he was hired first as a consultant and then as head of my extended redevelopment authority between the dra and another new mayor, this time john : we had ambitions to turn around his own near bankrupt and politically paralyzed city. in boston, he learned from his mistakes in the new haven into
those taken place under the previous loss, he came in, waving a flag of panic with people and vowing never to undertake the kind of demolition that happened in the west neighborhoods. two dimensions of his workup boston, downtown and neighborhoods. the heart of downtown was the creation of government centers, revitalize boston's statement downtown, to greatly expand jobs there and pressure a reluctant monkey business elite, to finally commit to the city that it had been ignoring for decades. seeking to control boston's democratic party machine under michael from massachusetts state house. the government center creation story is a fascinating one, where he made false use full use
of the power. reviewing the just revealed design for city hall, it's nothing but a wholehearted affirmation of a new time, new social need and new technology and new aesthetic to declare the civic instrument of government. the architects of city hall meant its modern design to send exactly that message about integrity of government. one of the architects put it many years later, he and his partners had a tremendous feelings that government is not just the institution but the institution for social change. city hall should be the people of power, symbol of open government. the government center project marked another crucial evolution in robes thinking. here he came to recognize the
boston's other neighborhoods were more contentious downtown or washington park but in the end teethree learned he had to negotiate between a modern and historic boston also he had to negotiate with key neighborhood groups looking at five boston neighborhoods south and in the north harvard area per code what i discovered is every neighborhood has its own story with class and race but the outcome i learned from was varied and unexpected to grab the neighborhoods from lower-class blacks.
through the urban renewal experience they develop the skills to negotiate with city officials. as a participant with an mit graduate student leader professor he called at the rehabilitation planning game. boston citizens would apply the skills for more affordable housing through the inner belt highway project in the 1970s. through these experiences i suggest contributed to a new expectation of what that democratic process of city redevelopment should entail. with the arrow like civil rights and feminism grassroots
participatory democracy is what i call it is a requirement marking a very big shift from community consultation in the fifties to what i call a pluralist democracy. teethree was widely credited to bring about the city's turn around as the new boston as his years ended with another surprise a failed effort in 1967 to run for mayor when collins announced he was stepping down. it became clear that teethree was better suited for the demonstrators than the mayor's office he was a terrible campaigner but he also suffered from a ten person race when the front runner was a segregationist so
understandably that caused her opponents to rally around one candidate the secretary of the massachusetts of the commonwealth kevin white. act iii new york state. teethree next act came about when liberal republican governor rockefeller was frustrated with the difficulty to get new york state voters to approve bond issues which were required to build subsidized housing in the state. he came up with the ambitious work around state wide agency that had enormous power and he hired teethree to head it. i do have a line in the book after the election he does get the position and then he hires janet murphy who was sitting in the front row who knocks on the door and says the
governors on the phone and ed says which governor? 's she says rockefeller. [laughter] funded by state funds and federal dollars and a unique move to be sold to private investors. in recognition of the difficulty of this job this gave teethree tremendous authority including the ability to acquire property through eminent domain and to override exclusionary zoning and building codes. getting the new york state legislature approval was not easy particularly the part about overwriting zoning. it only came about very reluctantly when rockefeller
argued after mlk was assassinated that new york needed "a true memorial not made of stone but action and rockefeller was very good at twisting arms. the udc had many successes 33000 units of housing over six and a half years and brought alternatives to demolitions style renewal to create new towns that was the inspiration i mentioned earlier on undeveloped land on roosevelt island nude new york city and planned to be mixed income mixed race and mixed age communities to experiment with architectural design such as low rise high density alternative and i want to point out the picture of the upper right in the corner is
tony at a discussion about this new housing in brooklyn. it also became a leader in affirmative action hiring in the state. but the udc came tumbling down when teethree tried to build modest amounts of affordable housing in nine well off westchester suburban communities. what he called fair share housing program. meant to make it more difficult nixon turned off the federal spigot to implement a moratorium on all spending on housing as part of his federalist agenda to reduce the role of the federal government. as a result udc came to a dramatic collapse including bankers handling the bond sales accusing udc to put social mission before its responsibility to investors.
february 1975 the udc disastrously defaulted and teethree was forced to resign under great anger and frustration it was too good to last that's why i so cordially dislike bankers they feel threatened i was engaged in social engineering as if that was bad i was proud of the fact that roosevelt island was a total piece of social engineering". final act and you are watching this man as he ages through life in the south bronx 1978 through 85 he became president of an organization as his last major urban redevelopment job he thought to re- ability himself after the failure and
also one of the poorest areas in the nation less power and a small amount of funding he has ever had before nixon cut in federal appropriations taken under carter and then a huge dive under reagan between 1981 in 1987 the federal housing programs were slashed more than any other part of reagan's budget the federal government was going out of the visit business and in its place to actively promote private market solutions. as president of the small scrappy group he scrambled for resources and strip shifting strategy out of necessity seeking ways to take advantage of the new orientation to private market solutions to develop industrial parks and
partner with private lenders to build housing. the signature program was charlotte garden consisting of 90 ranch style prefabricated single-family homes constructed of one of the most troubled neighborhoods in new york city and heavily subsidized for purchase with the goal of attracting lower middle-class homeowners with the revitalization that the multifamily rental housing was expected to follow. to the surprise of many skeptics charlotte gardens proved a huge success with hundreds of black and puerto rican residents fire and police and nurses and teachers eager to buy the kind of suburban house they could not afford or was not available to them as people of color in the sub suburban communities.
a few aspects of this period are worth mentioning here teethree abandon the previous prioritizing of innovative architectural design in favor of a conventional style and second charlotte gardens ultimately provided a blueprint for the more expensive housing plan that followed leading to 700,000 added to new york city stock and third most notably after a long career of paying lip service here in the south bronx he actually did it working closely with community planning boards like the mid- bronx desperados and came to recognize how necessary their
constituents were to achieving success. in conclusion let me highlight a few points to take away from this deep dive of teethree career. first, over time he learned a lesson that others learned that the work of the urban redevelopment experts a new profession he had worked extremely hard during the fifties and sixties to promote has serious limitations. more grassroots participation by community members greatly mattered but how to avoid not in my backyard or one single corner of the city without considering the whole remains a challenge for cities today. many can learn from this history planning for a neighborhood or city's future requires all interest are at the table officials at all
levels planners and architects private investors and particularly residents. second throughout teethree career he struggled to figure out for what proved to be very difficult for him. first how to create socially diverse by income race and age which he felt was the best insurance that minorities would get decent and equitable services such as schools and transportation and retail stores as well as greater opportunities in the future for themselves and their children in a society where your residential location dictates your life chances and middle-class whites are in the best position to demand the best, teethree promoted socially integrated communities. he frequently laughed the tools to do this and today we
struggle for example how to keep existing racket - - residents in neighborhoods that are gentrified to provide sufficient numbers of section eight vouchers for low income people who want to move to better served communities or to bring that requirement of developers of market rate housing must have affordable units or contribute to building elsewhere. second the other hard nut to crack is whole metropolitan areas to solve housing and schooling and other problems facing low income city residents he helped when he finally got to a statewide position he could make this happen in new york state but in the end contributing to the downfall of udc and the metropolitan problem-solving
remains elusive today. finally the greatest disappointment and disillusionment was the decline of the responsibility of government particularly at the federal level the financing revitalizing of cities and subsidizing of affordable housing over his career he watched federal support shrink and responsibility shift in the private sector which he considered a very serious mistake he anticipated but we encounter cities forced to make deals with undue burdens put on public services and a race to the bottom between cities with amazon as the latest example when it's not obvious how the private sector may not profit with infrastructure or spaces too
often much needed projects go on used and then deteriorate the basic responsibility for subsidizing housing is everywhere the developed world use to be. most importantly even if we acknowledge at best it was a proverbial mixed bag we can still admire and seek to recapture the spirit of experimentation that compels people like him in the room that worked with him rather than content ourselves with accepting the pallet of possibilities coming to dominate since the eighties. i will quote myself in the book this is the legacy of urban renewal that teethree
would want to honor that he considers the highest tribute to his lifetime of public service. thank you. [applause] we have ten minutes for questions. >> i'm a member here to what extent did he clash with boston in the sixties? >> he very much believed in highways. i did not come across any major conflicts with the expressway situation they both
regretted that terribly how that cut the city off from the waterfront and many other problems but that tony did tell me in my interview some funny stories after ed logue laughed and you came back after the expressway was defeated to work on the alternative part that you use to joke with him and tease you and say you were undoing all of his work that you said you felt that at some level he recognized the days of highways as the only solution was over and you also made the point that at the time there really would have public transit in the bill of the highway was the only way to get it accomplished but he was focused on saving the city and
accepted in new haven he thought the answer would be to keep people in the city. by the time he finished in new haven he felt that was a losing game he came to boston to recognize urbanization had taken off and they were not going to reverse that so instead he was very focused and saw those roads to bring people back to work in the city and forgot they go both directions for quite have anything specific to say. >> ed logue worked throughout his career with the boston redevelopment authority during which he had tremendous power
to him. currently in boston there is a big fight going on with the boston redevelopment authority should be abolished or continued to take its powers away. it does not represent democracies. >> i knew that question would come up. and i should point out the globe story that came out in the ideas section i had the interview with humphreys the author a couple weeks ago but then of course the report came out from the counselor and now my editor was to make sure we take this into account. obviously there is a lot more to learn. i have read the report.
i haven't followed the history with the same kind of attention after ed logue left as when he was here so i'm not well-informed enough to say i really now know what it has been up to but i would point out a few things but first of all in the report when she completely trashes urban renewal there are very few distinctions made over time and that's one of the points i'm trying to make that the examples that they give in the report is the west end of the new york streets which was the 19 fifties first phase which was terrible and disastrous. and then i tried to show there was an evolutionary process i
did say that and it was put into the ed logue story and i would remind us that sending the issues back to the city council is not necessarily the best solution. [laughter] and one of the things with city council and how he tried to sell his urban renewal plan they were all at large and this was supposed to be a fix for the neighborhood base for the charter change. that they still had very clear constituencies and politics we have to think what is the solution so it is understandable people could feel the prosperity boston is
going through is not likely shared we know the affordable housing crisis is terrible in this city there are other problems with transit and schools are struggling so they are definitely problems. and obviously we need to make sure they are accountable to the community but i hope i feel good about the topic because i feel it's a healthy discussion for the city to have as the gap continues to grow but i hope we will look at a full range of remedies be man.
>>. >> i don't live here when he ran for mayor but saying he was a supporter to some extent did the lack of success politically have a referendum on his activity for redevelopment? or his campaigning ability? >> i think it was both so in terms of being a terrible campaigner many lived in boston with him he helped add in the south bronx and told me they would walk in and it was just awful. edward go up to somebody and say hi. and he would say i am ed logue i'm running for mayor. but he just was not in people that work for him know that it
got to the point he was blunt and just was not cut out. he was not a good campaigner but he didn't have the deep roots coming from a family with a great pedigree on his side and also running from beacon hill had a very long pedigree so he was a controversial figure in the neighborhood. one of the things he was proud of he got support from architects who knew but i think he was viewed as a liberal candidate but there were ten candidates and people
worried the vote would be divided and more specifically and they were all from vacant - - beacon hill so the same constituency was divided among them. and one more thing when ed made a list trying to write the book of the mistakes of his career and number one was the north harvard situation which you have to read the book but then they did not negotiate he learned the lessons that was a mistake but then the challenging of the white petition. they all had to get signatures on petitions and probably there was some funny business in the petition but the ed
logue campaign handled it very poorly somebody made the campaign one - - complaint then disappeared into the woodwork and in the and it worked against ed logue instead of kevin white. lastly having very strong feelings of the people he worked with and not something i talk about in the book these fraternal relationships people that think so well of him they feel that bond and they brought his brother frank up to run the campaign which was a very big mistake and some of the people that i interviewed were hard-core boston political operators said we offered to help but frank said he did not need our help so we
backed off. there were a lot of mistakes made. >> describe the udc as failing. >> and many other civic project projects. >> so they didn't continue but. >> so how many people live in housing that ed logue is responsible for? >> and when there was the exhibition of housing and the creators went back like the
low rise high density and roosevelt island photographing people living in housing today. but i said it failed because there was only one explanation given at the time with the state legislature to get its chance to kill udc and took away its power and that was the defeat so it was difficult process there were accusations they had not handled responsible on --dash finances responsibly. to see as an investment that ed logue thought was resources
there was never any mismanagement but a commission to build his defense there was never any mismanagement but they were so driven to make this work and this is what was ultimately decided. >> so the housing was built but if they thought the udc would go on forever because it was self financing and obviously it did not. >> i would like to comment if i could get your thoughts and i'm focusing on boston for my
career i have been involved with every administrator every one - - ever sense. so don't be surprised to some of those assumptions that are being made. one is that there was some chuckling with a discussion with the city council in boston and it's true particularly when ed logue and certainly during most of the regime it was a different city council today it is far more
representative of boston very smart women and i know you had to stop because then he went to new york see you got that half but not the other half. the other half is when all these different mayors came in after him and then to follow through on a great deal of what took place when really it was a redevelopment agency it
was paid for by the city than when other mayors came in basically they took over and took the attitude as the panacea to solve those problems everybody knows and can see it that is an example of private development i'm not saying they are all bad guys but that's an example when it ran the show and that's a problem when you get to affordable housing to make your point is well taken about the city council but i will say part of the issue what was ruling the structure of government at that time gave the power to the mayor so the only way the city council got
attention is when they did these antics so the structure supports them in that position they couldn't initiate anything in the budget it was a mayor centered system so granted we're dealing with a very different city council today. >> it still the same charter but those have been elected into focus the attention because the pe was for planning but then it's hard to find even today. >> so we are done. [applause]