tv Conservative Urban Development Policy Part 2 CSPAN September 4, 2017 2:19pm-3:21pm EDT
you should have a healthy distrust of any political leader. particularly the ones who claim to be speaking for you. >> at 9 p.m. eastern, the university of southern california annenberg assessor diane winston to read >> six corporations own much of the american news media. the digital revolution has meanwhile transformed the economy. networks, and daily newspapers our nationald agenda, instead many of us find information itches that reinforce our opinion. the polarization has seemed to split us into two nations. >> watch today on c-span and c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app. form -- now, a firm on the conservative urban development policy. including zoning and regulations which they believe should be
change in order to grow american cities. >> are right everyone, if everyone could take their seats, we are ready to begin. so first let me thank lewis for , moderating the first panel. jason and gracie. again, just let me say how grateful i am to all of you here, and all the people who made this possible. you, going an tell across the country working on this, there are people everywhere who are conservative and who are interested in cities. and they have a lot of questions that have been asked thus far, and a lot of questions which are we are now going to ask.
that as longll you as i have been following urbanism as a policy area, i have never seen such a commotion as on march 25, 2017, when a columnist dared to write in the new york times, "break up the liberal city." we are fortunate here to have ross delta who has been engaging in a series of what he describes as implausible sometimes but perhaps insane always , interesting argument to really get our political and policy conversation going in new directions. because i think everyone i have talked to, has been dismayed by how even after great political
disruptions it has continued in , stagnant track. and so let me just read a little , excerpt of it here. to kick off our conversation. of the new columnist york times, formerly of "the atlantic", other of "brand new party" and "bad religion." we have ben schwartz with us who is national editor of the "american conservative" who has a distinguished career. including also at the "atlantic." where he was a literary editor. we have aaron rend from the manhattan institute. he is a senior fellow there, and also runs the blog, "urbano file." in this cosmopolitan panel, is our representative from real america. aaron grew up in a town of 50
people in rural indiana. and so i am looking forward to be your have the -- looking forward to your heavy and robust discussion about american cities and the american polity and how they relate to each other. but first, in march, it was proposed that we should treat liberal cities the way liberals treat corporate monopolies. not as growth enhancing asset that concentrate wealth and power and conspire against the public good. instead of trying to make them more a gallic tyrian with affordable housing, we should make like teddy roosevelt and tried to break them up to reared [laughter] yes. and the way -- the reason this was so interesting to me is
coming off of this particular election, in which we saw just how much of our population was concentrated in certain places, and how much of one particular political persuasion was concentrated in those places, and because of that super the popular vote, as you may have heard, did not match the electoral vote for one of the rare times it american history area at most people have decried that, but he has always struck me that that may be something akin to the system working. it was after all, the connecticut compromise that put it in place. the senate, the electoral college in order to try and balance the nation against concentrated commercial wealth.
so, let me just turn to you ross and allow you to address these fine city folk. why aren't the cities be treated like a trust and broken up possibly? >> first of all, thank you so much for having me. this is a wonderful event. i'm honored and flattered to be here. second let me preface all my remarks by saying, second, if you missed it, i thanked all for having me. [laughter] everything i say tonight by noting that i'm a newspaper columnist. the requirement of that job description is to make outlandish suggestions about areas which you are generally under informed. and to pretend to a higher level of knowledge in which you have. i'm not an urban policy person. i have never attempted to revitalize the city of akron. [laughter] i have lived in cities for much of my life and in fact, i guess to sort of burnish my urbanist i
-- bona fides lived here in in , neighborhood in capitol hill for about seven or seven years. we've been in semirural connecticut for about the last two years. for various reasons some of them having to do with kicks that has been an unsuccessful experiment. we will be returning to walkable urbanism in new haven, connecticut this fall. i'm an admirer and enjoyer of walkable urbanism and urbanism in general. that being said, america's biggest cities are bad. they're bad in several different ways. ways that are effectively intertwined. basically one of the biggest stories in our society over the last 30 or 40 years, since the 1960's and has been a socioeconomic 1970's,particular educational sorting. where you have the increasing concentration of college
graduates and people with post graduate degrees into a particular set of sort of knowledge economy, symbolic analyst cities. mostly on the east and west coast and also in sort of around major colleges and universities in the heartland. this concentration has obviously upsides, or people would not be doing it. as i said, i have lived in them and i like them, they are wonderful places to live. they have a lot of beautiful architecture that's much more attractive than split level ranches and sprawling culdesacs. they bring people together who work together and play together and go to coffee shops together and all of that has some kind of economic multiplier effect. you have to assume the economist s assume it does, it has some
sort of innovation goosing effect. and the people who do it, like it. those are all good things. unfortunately, it also means that american society is effectively segregated by education and social capital as never before. it's segregated in ways that have political consequences where the democratic party can claim 48% of the vote that's been discovered all that 48% is crammed into such a small geographical area even if you undo every republican gerrymandering you still may not get the representation. that democrats feel that they deserve. this also has consequences for republicans, because as you , discussing before, it gives republicans a disincentive to even compete in urban areas which blinds republican politicians to the important ins and outs of urban policy. if has related effects. it has the effect of effectively
pitting cities against cities. i lived in connecticut for the last two years. i grew up in connecticut. connecticut is having lot of trouble these days. connecticut is a state of small cities. i like small cities. i grew up in one. i think they are in many ways more livable and humane than the bigger cities. but major companies and the sort of young driven 20 somethings who they want to hire, don't necessarily want to live in small cities when there's a much bigger city available. so what is happening to connecticut cities especially have ones lucky enough to yale university has been a , kind of departure. this has happened to connecticut suburbs as well. for instance, the city of hartford was historically the insurance capital of the united states. it was where wallace stephen sold insurance and wrote poetry. it's a beautiful city with a beautiful art museum, literary
tradition, sits on the river, and so on. but companies don't want to be based there anymore. recently, one of the last major insurance companies powering one of its innovation and young people and technology focused offices to new york city. where else? new york city is a place that the young people they want to hire want to be. it's also a place that is rich and getting richer and afford -- and can afford the tax some big -- tax subsidies and breaks that more vibrant companies into chelsea or wherever. where is hartford with a shrinking base of companies can't afford that. what has played out between new york city and boston and connecticut in between them, playing out in certain ways in the country at large as well. the great urban revival in the united states is a revival of mega lop sis. -- is a revival of megalopolise
s. not a revival of smaller cities. where it's a conservative approach to urban policy will be likely to flourish. the final issue here, i won't talk about my solutions, because they're all obviously crack pot ideas, but the last issue is that these cities are also population sinks, basically. they are places are a lot of people do not have kids. that has implications for conservative politics, because conservative politics tends to be sort of boosted by people who have children for various reasons. but it also has implications for the future growth of the united states, the future growth of the western world. it has complicated implications that i have written other columns about for the polarization of our politics and how we think about racial and demographic change. it has a lot of unfortunate implications. while i'm supportive of a lot of
the sort of -- what you might call the urbanist consensus. this is what i think unites a lot of free market conservatives and sort of center-left policy wonks. you have these big cities that are centers of economic growth, but they do not have enough housing, so nobody can move their. so they are not effectively serving the kind of engine of of working in middle class prosperity function that cities that exist 100 years ago. san francisco can be much more dense. new york much more dense. i agree with all of that. sort of. but, if you make san francisco a lot denser, you're not going to be building the kind of houses -- you could but you probably not going to be building the kind of houses where people are going to have three kids and live there for 20 or 25 years. you're much more likely to be building more urban standard
spaces, which are a good place to live by yourself, or with a roommate or girlfriend or spouse and maybe good space to have one kid. i may be if you squeeze, a good place to have two kids, but it is exhausting. they are not places in the long run, where if you encourage more and more people to move to, you're going to get any kind of reversal of what i think of as the negative them a graphic trend in the united states and the western world. while i can see the economic case for that kind of consensus, and i basically supported. but i think you also need to think outside the box a little bit more. and think about sort of the trajectory that this urban concentration takes us on politically in terms of , polarization and partisan politics and sort of socioeconomically and culturally, both in terms of its effects on the rest of the country, and on the effects on
the life cycle, and when people have kids, whether they get married, and so on. which would lead me to a partial defense of several grenades nation in the 1950's and 1960's. but i've gone on long enough. [laughter] >> speaking of that penalty. natalistato list -- penalty. you wrote for "the american conservative", a cover story that was titled "cities without children" you engaged the patron thing of urbanism. particularly, her town. her little village. i was wondering if i would bring up that perspective to engage the effects of cities on families and what that means for cities going forward versus the village that she inhabited.
works well, do i need to as well? in the last panel, we heard a lot of talk about communities. are,w communities connected with family life, and i could not agree more. that's really when you read jane jacobs, what you really getting is her -- what's most memorable, is her lyrical small town evocation of village life in the middle of an american city. that was largely because she was describing a great peculiar neighborhood. it was a working class neighborhood. which was essentially gentrified. tohad all of the advantages social stability of a working-class neighborhood in industrial postwar new york. with sort of the fun bohemian
, elements that attract so many of those young innovative knowledge workers to the city. >> they're good people. >> yes. [laughter] the problem is though, as i see it, i am a marxist conservative. so i have to always -- [laughter] i always have to bring things back to the economic and social relations area the reason that these communities that we love, and that we are trying to get the product of certain economic and social and even gender realities. this is going to just to say something outrageous. you can't have the community life that jane jacobs described. or that for instance t.j. wall , described in similar
", onin his book "holy land postwar suburban california. you cannot have that community life with the gender relations that we have now. this was dependent on women being at home during the day. yes, the store owner did intervene when the children were running across the street every now and then but it was , mostly the eyes and ears on the street. jacob makes this plane, it was the mothers. and this is absolutely true in suburbia. the kind of suburbia that we all envision, that is really quite enticing. you have kids playing in the culdesac. kids running from yard to yard. there are women at home mining -- minding the children. i am not all suggesting that we
go back to that euro. but i am saying -- to that era. but i am saying that the community life was the product of an economic reality. that i think is vanished. i don't are to be since i'm in -- i am not an urban planner, i don't have to come up with a solution. i see the solution. i see the kind of -- i see certainly the major urban centers are going to be increasingly and intensely , centers of hip young knowledge workers. democrat or republican. their politics is some ways influential. -- incidental as well. there's no way they'll be havens for middle class or working class life. this makes things even more pessimistic. if you look at charles murray's
book. he was talking about this sorting that ross was describing. my god. you couldn't get to that working-class life, because the it is arguable whether it could support the family life and community life. that it did back then. i think a lot of this is really exercising the nostalgia. again, it is very nice for the most privileged among us, to be coffee,walk into peet's but it doesn't really give us the idea of family life that and thatvoked presumably a lot of us want to get back to. final point, everyone says that
the humans in the small towns, that they want to be able to walk to the stores. if you look at what was new york, the streetscape in new york, the most sophisticated cosmopolitan city in the country. what was it like and am postwar of shoeit was monotony repair stores, hardware stores, and dry cleaning. ,t served this local population and there were some antique huge bookstores, some cafes. but it was mostly local people leading their local communities very mundane lives, the neighborhoods were very self-contained. we cannot go back there. the downtown is lovely, it is bucolic, charming, the downtown has boutiques, it essentially serves tourists.
store, i if a hardware would say, i would love to go to a hardware store, to walk into one downtown. but i spend all of my time at home depot, because home depot is going to have the selection and the price and as a consumer, i want that. again, that is an important diction -- distinction, you cannot return to the small-town life. you cannot return to that wishful urban neighborhood. >> are right, thank you. , you have a very interesting perspective, as a mentioned, you grew up in a small town. the smallest of small towns. you then spend time in nowanapolis, chicago, and you apply your wares in new york city.
band has just described how we are not going back -- ben has just described how we are not going back to an air of nostalgia. what is the future of the american city? >> that is a good question. ithink one of the things that really took away from ross's peace, the breaking up of the liberal city is that the status quo is not an option. is particular recipe, which think is more of a thought experiment, may not be the right one, we need to make some serious consideration of the fundamental change. there are three reasons for that, one is that in the era of and glazer, the triumphant city, economic results have been terrible in america. there was a book written "the rise of the creative class" in 2002, and he foretold the rise of these superstar cities
powered by high talent creative's, densely clustered in these transit oriented walkable neighborhoods, etc.. written aater, he has book called "the new urban crisis" talking about the problems of downsizing that followed some of that. he saw problems but he did not see the negatives coming. since 2000, urban economic growth has been terrible. barack obama was the first president since hoover to not have more than 3% gdp growth. george w. bush was just as bad, his economic growth was dismal. and 1990's, job growth in america averaged 1.9%. per year. since 2000, we have averaged about half that. incomes are lower today than they were in 2000, so the anemic job growth and declining
incomes, those are just bad results of the current regime, so something needs to change. the second thing is, these liberal cities have benefited from deliberate government policies around as ashley globalization. -- around especially. globalization. there is a sociologist who wrote -- an international bleeding theorist on global cities -- international leading theorist on global cities. who talks about what allowed factories and call centers to be shipped all throughout the world. she pointed out that it is a lot more complex to do business in countries all over the world than it is in one country. so spreading the supply chain all over the world, created demand for new forms of complex financial and producer services. international currency, international contract law, international accounting and marketing. these required a lot of highly
specialized skills to produce, once that you could not get in every city. people who could do this those sorts of things tended to cluster together in a limited number of places like new york, chicago, what should labeled global cities -- what she labeled global cities. they came in part as a decline of the akron's of this world. certainly, globalization played ise role, as part of what seen as the rise of these cities. people like to think of globalization of something that just happened, but globalization, yes there were various forms of technological improvements that emerged, but globalization was a deliberate government choice. government policy,
federal government action. the uruguay round of trade talks, government action. admitting china to the wto, government action. government has been a tremendous promoter of globalization in its policies. the intellectual classes which are just proportionally ace in global cities have been the biggest cheers best cheerleaders of this system because it are the ones benefiting from it. i think we need to look at the word -- the role that globalization played in tearing some of these laces down, but also in building up global cities. lastly, there has been a lot of help for these cities. washington is impact because of the vast expansion of the federal government in covering every nuke and cranny of life. new york has benefited greatly from wall street bailouts and attitude towards prosecution of financial crime in the wake of the crash.
silicon valley has accomplished what i accomplished in part because it has been given exemption from all of the ordinary business practices which every other american industry has to comply. ordinary american businesses cannot just coming to your town say we'redid and going to start operating. ordinary american businesses could not operate with the demographics of employees of just young white and asian males like silicon valley. so in essence, they were not even able to pay taxes on internet transactions for a long. of time. so there were specific government actions that benefited many of these cities, and policies around globalization, and frankly the era of dominance has been an era of economic underperformance. so, whatever the answer is, it is time for a rethink. ?> rob [laughter] [no audio] [applause]
>> i think -- i feel like i have been contrarian, i am not sure what have to say. i guess i would make a couple of comments, which is going to -- i got into an online discussion briefly about one of the questions you raised about anemic growth. --cited it in the original column, the effects of all of these workers living together having produced anemic growth. sent me ablogger who bunch of research arguing that in fact, all things being equal, these cities are increasing growth and there is more growth in countries that have more of them and so on, and that a sickly the argument that it could have been worse. that global growth would be even
more anemic without these concentrations. so i feel like i am not enough of a scholar of the literature to adjudicate that case, but i think it is worth raising, contrarian is him. -- contrarianism. another thing worth raising is that one of the fascinating things, i do not have an answer to this exactly, but i wrote a book with someone else about 10 years ago which was talking about this very issue. aboute sort of talking the future of the working class, and of the american heartland and one of the things we said, this was in 2004 is -- this was in 2005, that obviously the internet, is going to be a great mechanism for potential decentralization. basically would have lots of people who want to live in
small, midsize american cities, in the middle of america, because housing is cheaper there, and the cost of living is lower and so on. and they would be able to telecommute or have a piece of a sent to aat could be different part of the country and that would be fine because of the internet. that the internet would enable physical dispersion and my theract this trend towards concentration of the hyper educated. that has not happened, and in fact, the reverse has continued to happen. all of the people who work in the most internet-enabled companies also want to be as close together as possible. now,northern california that means in the new company towns, living there. is interesting, i think,
again i do not have a full explanation for that, but it is an interesting fact of america in the age of the internet. you do have a dispersal, people do move and continue to move to the southern belt, and we talk about these coastal megalopolises, but there's plenty of growth in atlanta, phoenix, texas, these sprawling suburbanite cities which are family-friendly. people keep moving to them, but the hyper-educated, that knowledge workers, this class has not done that. the companies that they work for, have not done that. this new economy, has not dispersed, and there is an interesting social logical and psychological story about why that is. but i have not completely figured it out exactly. but it is part of the story
here, that the internet, theoretically could geographically dispersed us, but in fact, it has not. should i say something more in the sense of this -- indissen dissent of the suburbs? >> i would challenge the suburbs to this degree which is that the suburbs are certainly growing. the sunbelt is certainly growing. but they're also becoming more carbon. they are gathering -- more urban. they are gathering people into becoming denser and more walkable. there are two ways to talk about cities, one is talking about new york city and its large urban core.-- its large urban
new urbanism initiatives have always been focused on repairing urban form. and showing that in fact, the booming texas cities, if you go to them, they are establishing downtowns, they are creating that walkable environment, because that is what the market is demanding. zoning,ough american the market works. now, i also want to bring up with you, what you mentioned about anemic economic growth. n might want to chime in here, there has been a barrage, from many others who posit that we have had economic growth, precisely because we've had such limited cities. cities are the economic engine of america right now, a
collaboration of that, that lovely word that just rolls off the tongue, -- economic growth has been allowed to roll forward, and we have frozen those with a zoning. aaron, should we do regulate the city? what would we get from that? after all, the free market position? >> in theory, if you have higher incomes available in some of these coastal cities, that should draw people from around the country to want to come there. unfortunately, those high wages are often offset by high housing costs. which make it prohibitive to people. so what you see is coastal cities becoming progressively more and more elite and their character, new york is still the center of the financial world. much of the finance industry, employment in that office is
being backloaded nash offloaded to place his lecture a salt lake city, where goldman has a gigantic office. there was an article the other day about denver soaking up a lot of the financial jobs, and even san francisco. the mid valley and a lower jobs are moving offshore or to sunbelt towns, and these urban areas are becoming more elite, as they effectively become frozen, thanks to building regulations. in san francisco, you cannot build anything, you have to have special permission in order to build literally anything in the city. so, definitely, it would be to great advantage to be able to build more, and be able to bring housing prices down so that more and more people could enter, and we would be a more normally functional market. it is hard to see how that happens politically in those places. them,of people there, for
high housing prices are not among their future, they are a form of functional exclusion. in the united states, that is what they do, to basically price people out. secondly, a lot of people have bought houses, at these high prices, and they are therefore -- there would be tremendous destruction of wealth if there was a decline in those races. so anyone who builds a home or property, they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep it high. and if you regulatory relief through red tape -- the dynamics don't allow for the kinds of development that might relieve some of this pressure and break up some of this concentration due to natural market forces. is -- when yous say break up the concentration?
on the should market forces, in that sense would not break up the concentration, it would bring jobs back from salt lake ? to san denver, right francisco and new york, which would effectively -- it would limit the concentration of sort of the uber wealthy, and bring those jobs -- they would still be upper-class -- upper-middle-class and highly educated jobs. so you would have an increased concentration in a certain way, more economically efficient, but it would not have a dispersive effect, right? again,ould absolutely -- it is speculative as to what would happen. it would probably have a debit of effect. a lot of these jobs move -- it would probably have a diabetes dilutive effect.
these jobs are just which employ a lot of middle-class families. having those kinds of people --ating diversity demographic diversity in the city as opposed to just having ch, young and single, it is probably good politics, to be side by side, working with people who are different. it would reduce -- >> but what if those people become different people? because they're living in san francisco or new york? i want to start a family, but my job, it can keep me in new york and i can afford to live here in a smaller apartment or home that i have in charlotte, so i can get married a little later and have kids a little later or not at all -- this is just a question that i'm trying to grapple with, those
people then, they are left -- it is nice to say that we can have a sort of north carolinian with a bigworking new york city democrat, but those north carolinian republicans or centrist democrats would not be republicans had they stayed in new york city and continued to work for their company in their culture, potentially? >> right, and they would not kidsbe, if they sent their to the colleges and universities that these apart -- these families would send their kids to, their kids would also change. there is this intent of -- youl, to fit into want to be at least be able to talk about what you listened to npr on the way home, if you're talking about that as a mindset or worldview that comes with that.
but i wanted to ask you about this, my family, i come from a long line of back office workers in law and new york, and those people never lived in that -- lived in manhattan. or they did not live in manhattan for a long time. all, these first of back-office jobs did not go from manhattan to charlotte, they probably went from manhattan to jersey city in the 1970's and then from jersey city to charlotte. was, it wasalways very hard to lead a middle-class family life in manhattan. it was all but impossible. and it seems that with all of the talk about how to revitalize york has some terrificew
public schools. they are extraordinary selective. are reserved for meritocracy. if you make $140,000 a year in charlotte and want to raise a family, and you want your kids to go to the same kind of schools, that is a revolution. i don't see that happening. change you, you will never change them. immigrations come to our country, and those immigrants are radically transformed generation by generation as they assimilate to the culture of the u.s. they change the culture of our country as well. new york city's culture has been
changed by the immigrants who came here. that is true when you are commuting from the suburbs. i agree the prospect for change is not high, but to say that we are doomed to have this high very high-end, people, young millennials, very say thegrants, is to commanding heights of the american economy will be held forever by the left because were writing off cities politically f citiesre writing of politically. the reason these cities are so far to the left is because the demographics changed. the people who voted for rudy king can't the afford queens. that kind of middle-class voter is gone.
conservativism -- is conserv ativism gradually retreating? >> let us get questions from the audience. microphone that is able to go around. >> two tracks about conservativism. specifically about global cities and others we have referenced. themelationship between has been a little hazy. but i wonder if we could introduce how new can we get? -- therean opportunity is a degree of resignation about some of these larger cities, and perhaps rather than looking to
lifefor revitalizing urban tever,e detroits or wha there are smaller cities that we could perhaps develop. we could look to cultural dynamics to bypass the trouble of the moment. in?ay i jump >> jump away. >> as far as the first part of your question, this speaks to the point you were raising. well, you must ,now this town indirectly mumford, new jersey was always a liberal, high-minded suburb of
new york. it had its share of country club republicans. essentially where journalists and labor lawyers and everyone in publishing moves to where they are priced out of manhattan. inis not for poor people four secretaries, -- and for secretaries. it is for working journalists and the few publishers who remain employed. [laughter] >> i hope this injured -- industry is in better shape than journalism. what you have in the case of
montclair, new jersey is the of elite,spread liberal mindset and values. i spent part of the summer, my son goes to a fancy prep school in new england. school, heof the said i need to get as far away from this place as possible. we have to go to the south. i took him there and we spent some time in chattanooga and knoxville. >> we were at the region this weekend. rban-y. new ubr chattanooga seems to be a place on the cost -- place on the cu sp. gritty and kind of hip. isn't that the problem. it is hip.
there is some dumb money here -- some young money here. i don't know what people do anymore. [laughter] -- this is chattanooga. it is becoming a much more interesting place, but it is all young people without kids. this is chattanooga. if it is not going to work there, i don't know where it will work. families are not going to move there until they think they can raise and educate our kids there. >> let me get your perspective because you live in indianapolis. encountered some of the same revivals that chattanooga has. what was the experience they
are? -- experience there? >> indianapolis is dramatically different from new york. i go around to events and look at how many people wearing reading wings -- wedding rings. in new york, it is a minority. a tremendous number of single people in manhattan. you go to a city like indianapolis, 75% plus of the people are married. it is much more married couples. there are definitely issues with urban schools and people raising their families there. the primary population base is suburban. they have walkable, dense neighborhoods. very small. nothing like new york or san francisco density.
there are these far regions , married the family couples, people with children. that doesn't always mean republicans. that demographic tends to shift that way, but i know very ec-conscious families with children, with a different sensibility and sense of priorities and they add a different voice to the city. even people who have a different political persuasion, with children, bring a different conversation to the city. when you travel to other cities, you see a tremendous difference in the percentages of people who are married and the percentages of people who have kids. kids, thesence of present of married people with kids, inhibits or means you're
not getting that urban lateralization. many people who are engaged in that process precisely for their kids. >> i would have to challenge you on all of this. [laughter] as you pointed out, they are using the downtown. they want to go on saturday night and walk around in a disneyland version of an urban space. they are living in the suburbs, not there. because that is where the schools are. live in thatnt to loft space over the coffee shop, but that is very expensive. and where are they going to send their kids? i am addressing mostly a conservative audience.
and the conservative republicans can find distinctions. but the problem is, and i think ross would support this, the people adhering to family and religious values who are raising stablekids in -- it's those over-talented urbanites. some are republicans and some are democrats. but it is the uber-talented urbanites adhering to family values. churchgoing is much stronger among the economic elites than it is the country at large. we have time for one last
question. in the middle. thank you. i am from a suburb of dallas. i have never seen a doggy water fountain. [laughter] i texted my mother. thing,d, that is the americans don't have kids. [laughter] we have to talk about the elephant in the room, prime. -- in the room, crime. you want to raise your kids in an area where you can be sure that when they are walking down the street something won't happen to them. point, that people want to have kids and raise kids in a place where you know they are going to be safe.
we are seeing this movement against the one thing we know does decrease crime, more police presence. what you have to say to making cities livable? what does that look like politically speaking? how can we be the ones arguing for more cops when we know that is the thing that decreases crime? out, ross?close >> you are right. invasion around some of these issues. just from personal experience, we lived on capitol hill. which has become a highly gentrified, educated d.c. neighborhood, with increasingly several good public schools that were good up through fourth or fifth grade.
parents that had gotten in a changed the culture of the school. down tremendously over the last 20 years. there is still a lot of crime on capitol hill. stolen in alexandria and taken on a joyride. the cops said, we are going through the items in the car, and you guys on the brass knuckles -- and you guys own the brass knuckles/ ? sometimes kurt and i get into it. [laughter] there was a murder five blocks down. it was not the only factor, but once we had children, that was a
factor in our decision that we now regret, to move out of the city. factor when we are talking about the jacobs image. you let your children roam in your neighborhood. role inhat plays a big these dynamics. you asked a specific policy question. fact a kinde is in of a sweet spot, a hard one to hit. forcesd urban police that are more numerous and restrained in certain ways. the left and libertarian critique of police practices, especially as white urbanites have moved to reclaim the cities
is a legitimate critique. scenarios that turn into these trials and get caught on video, all of that is a real part of this sort of tension of gentrification, that have this sort of stop and first mentality -- sort of sto p-and-frisk mentality. white middle-class people should feel comfortable that police are doing these things. but i remember reading lipservice on twitter, people saying, white people moved in down the street from me and started calling the police on me when i take a walk. that is a reality. -- race issuesca in america are extremely difficult to handle. there is a lot of data on police presence as a deterrent to crime
that could be affective and is effectively put to use by some police departments. you could have a world with less overt more police, less stop and frisk. his crime policy actually achievable in the current climate? harder to say. in the 60's and 70's, the suburban flight, obviously the role of crime got bigger in the 60's and 70's. even before then, when crime rates were very low, crime rates in the urban areas in the early 50's were as low as at any point in american history. they are still much higher than in the suburbs. people having kids are going to take that into account and find something attractive about being in neighborhoods, like the
neighborhood we live in now and will soon leave, one of our intimates thinks we are making a mistake by going back to walkable urbanism. they will occasionally tell us we're moving to crime haven. [laughter] these issues are tough. and they will not cease. -- >> and they will not cease. >> i want to thank the american conservatives for having us here. i want to encourage everyone to continue reading the people of that have been up to today. -- the people that have been up here today.. the question of cities and the ways in which we live together are getting more relevant. there is fantastic work being done by people who have been on this panel and others.
help me give a round of applause. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> congress returns with a busy month ahead of tomorrow with federal funding expiring september 30. this week, the hacks -- the house works on a spending package containing the remaining appropriation bills. a billionent's nearly dollar aid request for hurricane harvey is expected wednesday. coverage is beginning at 2 p.m.. the senate is working on a judicial nomination for the district of columbia and possibly beginning work on defense department programs and
policy for the next year. watch the senate, live on c-span2. times" commentator talks about global cities. the chicago form on global cities hosted. ladies and gentlemen, the chicago global affairs president. [applause] chicago and the 2017 forum on global cities. i am the president of the chicago council on global affairs. it is great to have all of you here. imagine aicult to more timely moment for us to convene this particular forum. in the year since we last met, and in the last few days, it chicago