Valuing America - PDF document

Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA POLICY AGENDA FOR OLDER SUBURBS IN THE MIDWEST ENTERONRBANANDETROPOLITAN THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY AND THEMETROPOLITAN AREA RESEARCH CORPORATION HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OTHER CIVIC LEADERS FROM FIRST SUBURBS IN THE MIDWEST.WE HAVE EXPLORED THE MAJOR MARKET,DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL TRENDS AFFECTING THESE PLACES,IDENTIFIED THE ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES THAT THESE JURISDICTIONS HAVE INCOMMON AND DEVELOPED A POLICY AGENDA FOR FIRST SUBURBS TOPURSUE.THIS PAPER OUTLINES A BOLD AGENDA FOR STATE AND FEDERALPOLICY REFORM TO FURTHER THE HEALTH,VITALITY AND COMPETITIVENESS OF FIRST SUBURBS IN THE MIDWEST.Center on Urban and Metropolitan PolicyCopyright © 2002 The Brookings Institution Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy Executive Summary The Assets and Challenges of The Role of Current State and IV. A New Policy Agenda for First Suburbs V. VI. Conclusion Data Appendix Selected Bibliography Endnotes AcknowledgementsValuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA POLICY AGENDA FOR OLDER SUBURBS IN THE MIDWEST However, recent demographic and marketinformation has clearly shown us thatsuburbs are no longer homogeneous, mono-lithic communities with a generic set ofproblems. There are, in fact, a wide rangeof suburban experiences and realities.FIRST SUBURBSÑgenerally inner-ringhave older housing, aging infrastructureand, at times, struggling neighborhoods andgrowing job centers in thesuburbs that are capturing largeshares of employment growth in THERE IS A BURGEONING MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO HELP COMMUNITIES,REGIONSAND STATES GROW IN SMARTER AND MORE SENSIBLE WAYS.TO ACHIEVE ITS ENDS,THIS MOVEMENTHAS PRINCIPALLY FOCUSED ON TWO TYPES OF PLACES:CENTRAL CITIES REQUIRING REINVESTMENTAND REDEVELOPMENT AND RAPIDLY GROWING SUBURBS FACING CHALLENGESSUCH AS TRAFFIC CONGESTION,LOSS OF OPEN SPACE AND SCHOOL OVERCROWDING. The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy ture networks. They usually do not havevery high concentrations of poverty, and areoften small in size, which enables them tobe responsive to neighborhood and localissues. However, many Þrst suburbs in theMidwest are beginning to experience chal-lenges associated with the age of theirneighborhoods, infrastructure and housingand the needs of a changing population.They are highly fragmented which createstheir ability to grapple with regional chal-lenges. These concerns, coupled with inadequate Þscal capacity, limit ÞrstsuburbsÕ ability to remain, or become, communities of choice for residentsSecond, FIRST SUBURBS ARE CAUGHT IN A POLICY BLINDSPOT.central cities, they are not poor enough to qualify for many federal andstate reinvestment programs and not large enough to receive federal andstate funds directly. Unlike newer suburbs, they are ill suited to federaland state programs that focus on building new infrastructure and housingrather than maintaining, preserving and renovating what is already built.In general, Þrst suburbs are undermined by large federal and state policiesthat, on balance, facilitate sprawl and concentrate poverty. These poli-cies set the dominant Òrules of the development gameÓ that ultimatelyshape metropolitan growth in ways that undermine older communities.Third, FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD DO MORE TOHELP STRENGTHEN THE HEALTH AND VITALITY OF FIRST SUBURBS BEFORETHEY BECOME THE NEXT RING OF DECLINE. They can reset the Òrules ofthe development gameÓ so that older communities are supported throughmore balanced transportation policies, effective regional and stategrowth management and land use planning that encourages cooperationrather than competition among separate municipalities. They can helplevel the playing Þeld in terms of Þscal health so Þrst suburbs are able toprovide basic services, particularly for working families, within theirexisting budgets and without overly burdensome taxes. Finally, federaland state governments can provide incentives to make Þrst suburbsÕcommercial space competitive and stimulate housing, community revital- These policy reforms will not occur in avacuum. First suburbs need to organizethemselves to achieve systemic, meaningfulchange in their Þscal, economic and socialconditions. The unique interests of small,Þrst suburban jurisdictions are rarely thefocus of the federal and state governments.First suburbs can change this by buildingcoalitions that reach across geographic,partisan and ideological lines. These coalitions should be nimble and entrepre-neurialÑ aligning on some issues with thecentral city, on other issues with rapidlygrowing suburbs and rural areas. There arealready several examples throughout theMidwest where Þrst suburban leaders havebuilt effective political coalitions for statereform that reßect their unique issues There is clearly an emerging debate aboutgrowth and reinvestment in metropolitanareas throughout the United States andparticularly in the Midwest. This reportcontends that Þrst suburbs need to beactively involved in this debate. Theirinvolvement could be a central factor inachieving the kind of sensible growth poli-cies that are desperately needed by older However, as suburbs have become moredemographically, economically, and politi-cally powerful, they have also becomemuch more varied. While it is common to talk about Òthe suburbsÓ as a group ofhomogeneous jurisdictions, they are in fact highly diverse. At one end of thecontinuum lie older, inner-ring ÒÞrstÓsuburbs built early or towards the middle ofthe 20th century that are experiencingsome signs of distressÑaging infrastructure,dors, and inadequate housing stock. Likecities, these older communities requirereinvestment and redevelopment. Somerequire new assistance in meeting theneeds of their working poor families, immigrant and minority households, andAt the other end of the suburban continuum lies the newest ring ofsuburbs, emerging on the fringe of metropolitan areas. These placesÑLoudoun County in Northern Virginia, Douglas County outside Denver,the Route 495 corridor around BostonÑare growing rapidly. They representtodayÕs Òexit rampÓ economy, with office, commercial and retail facilities,and in many cases, high tech campuses, located along suburban freewaysmiles from the urban core. However, residents in these communities havefound that suburban prosperity comes with the heavy, unanticipated priceof traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, disappearing open space anddiminished quality of life.This range of suburban experiences is notreßected in todayÕs debate around metro-politan growth and how to grow ÒsmarterÓor more sensibly. Strategiesseem to be limited toeither slowing growth atthe suburban fringe orpromoting growth in ourabout older, inner-ring Þrst suburbs? Arethe challenges faced by Þrst suburbsaddressed by central city reinvestmentstrategies or reßected in efforts to addressfarmland consumption and hypergrowth inthe suburbs? Or are Þrst suburban interestsdifferent from both? Are leaders from thesesuburbs even participating in these conver-sations at all? Often it seems as thoughÞrst suburbs are caught in a policyblindspot between the attention longdirected to central cities and new atten-tion focused on fast-growing exurban areas.This report focuses primarily on Þrstsuburbs in the Midwest, since metropolitanareas in this region are facing similar trendsof no growth or little growth. But even inthe Midwest, Þrst suburbs are widelydiverse. While some suburbs are affluent,this report will focus primarily on thoseÞrst suburbs in the Midwest that are notexperiencing rapid population growth andmay be struggling with the changingmarket and demographic conditions ofFinally, this report focuses only on stateand federal policies to improve the healthof Þrst suburbs. While local strategies areimportant, state and federal policies areuniquely positioned to go beyond localdifferences to shape larger metropolitangrowth dynamics and set the broader rulesfor how growth and investment will occurin metropolitan areas.Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 4 THE 2000 CENSUS CONFIRMS THAT THE DECENTRALIZATION OF ECONOMIC AND RESIDEN-TIAL LIFE REMAINS THE PREVAILING TREND IN METROPOLITAN AMERICA.THE SUBURBSDOMINATED POPULATION GROWTH IN THE LAST DECADE.ONLY A HANDFUL OF CITIES GAINED POPULATION FASTER THAN THEIR METROPOLITAN AREAS. Language and DeÞnitionsIt is difficult to Þnd an appropriate terminology to refer to those oldersuburbs that are experiencing a unique set of challenges. In this report, wechose to use ÒÞrst suburbsÓ and leaders of ÒÞrst suburban areas.Ó This termlacks precision, but we have not found an alternative. Urban scholars suchas Myron OrÞeld, William Hudnut, Anthony Downs, William Lucy andThomas Bier have discussed these communities to some degree, but havenot used an all-encompassing, common deÞnition or typology. Leaders insome regions have identiÞed speciÞc terms to refer to these unique places,but their deÞnitions do not necessarily apply to other metropolitan areas. Finding a common characteristic to deÞne an Òolder suburbÓ or Òinner ringsuburbÓ is not simple. For instance, distance from the center city is not auseful variable because of the different sizes, topographies and growthpatterns of metropolitan areas: a vastly different measure of distance wouldbe necessary in Chicago, Kansas City or Pittsburgh. Focusing only onsuburbs immediately adjacent to the center city leaves out other strugglingjurisdictions that may be just a few miles away. Age of suburbs is difficult tomeasure and may actually be too precise for our purposes. Age of housingwithin suburbs is a plausible measure but only captures one characteristic ofthese communities. In some instances, we identiÞed and collected data forÒurban countiesÓ in these metropolitan areas. These counties, such as Cookand Cuyahoga, are accurately representative of Þrst suburbs but they fail toreßect Þrst suburbs in other counties within the metropolitan area.This lack of speciÞcity is telling. Webelieve that in many ways Þrst suburbs arecaught in a policy blindspot, between thecenter cities that always garner somemeasure of attention (positive and nega-tive) and newly developing suburbs on thefringe that are the popular focus of the waragainst sprawl. First suburbs seem to getlost in the shuffle. Critical issues for Þrstsuburbs in decline may not be chokingtraffic congestion or massive concentra-tions of poverty, but rather difficulty inÞrst suburbs, whether in decline or not,generally suffer because policies do notseem to recognize the unique challengespresented by their older infrastructure andhousing stock which may not be competi-tive in todayÕs market. Compared to centercities and outer suburbs, Þrst suburbs gener-ally have small populations and limitedgovernmental capacity. They are also Òbuiltheavily on residentialtaxes to fund basicThe Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 5 But as this paper will demonstrate, these placesÑknown as close-insuburbs, industrial boroughs, mature suburbs, and working class suburbsÑare still, and always have been, important. This is why the term makes particular sense. These suburbs are:First IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT.In chronological terms of thesuburban experience, these places generally developed Þrst after theircentral city and before the rapid suburban expansion of the last Þfty years.The time in which they emerged is reßected in their distinctive develop-ment patterns and based on the age of their central city.First IN TERMS OF LOCATION.They are usually in the Þrst ring ofcommunities, very close to the center cityÑand often began as bedroomcommunities for central city workers. Some are referred to as trolley suburbsfor the distinctive mode of transport that once brought workers to and fromjobs in the center city. First IN TERMS OF IMPORTANCE since these aging, mostly blue-collarsuburbs are places where many of our nationÕs most critical issues are playedout on a daily basis. To quote Philip Langdon, Òold[er] suburbs and oldurban neighborhoods embody a great deal of human experience andwisdom waiting to be rediscovered.ÓThe rest of this report is organized as follows: the next section describes theassets, advantages and challenges facing Þrst suburbs; Section Three goesthrough the range of state and federal policies that affect these places;Section Four lays out a new policy agenda for Þrst suburbs; andSection Five discusses how Þrst suburbs can organize forsuccess. An appendix at the end of the report providessome preliminary data on the characteristics ofValuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 6 class suburbsÑare still, The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy First suburbs can be communities of choiceoften home to established neighborhoodsconnected by sidewalks and interwovenwith parks. They offer road-wearycommuters easy access to downtownÕscommercial and entertainment districts or, alternatively, to some of the emergingemployment centers located in newersuburbs. First suburbs also have the intangible beneÞt that accrues to placesthat have existed for decades: a sense of community. 1. DESIGN AND QUALITY.First suburbs in the Midwest were developedbefore the current era of rapid suburban expansion and hyper growth inautomobile use and before segregated zoning policies became standard.Thus, they tend to have mixed-use neighborhoods. These neighborhoods,with sidewalks, stately trees, established parks, are what architects anddevelopers are working to replicate in new urbanist developments: theyhave a balance of jobs, services, and housing, and can support frequent andregular transit services. Many Midwestern Þrst suburbs have taken advantageof transportation investments (rail and highways) that often serve centralcities in a radial format. Because densities are high and communities are in close proximity to the central cities, transit connections are often quite good. Further, Þrst suburbs were built decades ago when sidewalkswere the rule, not the exception. Therefore, pedestrian activities are not only possible, they arewithin walking distance orelse are accessible by veryshort trips or public transit.young or too old to driveare still able to reach avariety of destinations.Plus, many buildings in Þrst suburbs areconstructed with high-quality materials(hard woods, plaster walls) that are gener-ally not part of contemporary construction.Many homes were built before wide spreaduse of residential air conditioning, so theyoften have comfortable front porches. 2. CENTRALITY AND CONVENIENCE.addition to sought-after design features,Þrst suburbs have an unforeseen geograph-ical edge. As exurban areas grow on theever-expanding periphery, Þrst suburbs arenow centrally located, with new airportsand employment centers on one side andon the other. This centrality is becomingincreasingly critical for adults in two-income households. First suburban residentscan easily take advantage of the beneÞts ofa central city such as universities, culture,health care, sporting events, and otherentertainment. However, many Þrst suburbsare still on the wrong side of the ÒdivideÓbetween regional ÒhavesÓ and Òhave-nots,Óand therefore are not able to take advan-tage of their local features and regionalcentrality. But many are Þnding themselvesuniquely situated as employment decentral-ization alters the regional landscape. TO ARTICULATE A COGENT POLICY AGENDA FOR FIRST SUBURBS AS THE 21ST CENTURYUNFOLDS,WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY CURRENTLY EXIST.LIKE MOST COMMUNITIES,FIRST SUBURBS ARE ENDOWED WITH SPECIAL ASSETS AND ADVANTAGES,BUT THEY ALSO HAVE CERTAIN CHALLENGES While these assets are real and important,there is no denying that some Þrst suburbsare undergoing market and demographicchanges that threaten their ability toremain communities of choice. Suchtrends, coupled with their age and gover-nance and Þscal capacities, present certainchallenges that are sometimes similar tothat of their neighboring central cities butare often unique to Þrst suburbs. It isimportant to take these challenges seriouslyand recognize their urgency. First suburbsthat are small in size often lack the publicand civic capacities to deal with changingdemographic and market conditions. This,combined with a lack of resources andcommercial base, means that Þrst suburbscan decline very quickly once they start tofalter. Unlike central cities, Þrst suburbs donot have the resources to combat the cycleof families and jobs. This tendency to spiraldownward reinforces the importance ofinvesting in Þrst suburbs while they are still stable or on the brink of decline. (See appendix for additional trends facingValuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest INFRASTRUCTURE AND NETWORKS.Transportation, water and sewernetworks, and hospitals and schools are already established in many Þrstsuburbs. Often the costs of construction were borne long ago and have longsince been realized. Although this infrastructure needs to be maintainedand sometimes modernized, it is nevertheless in place and provides theframework to guide development patterns into the future. Over the longterm, it is often considerably cheaper to maintain or even expand existinginfrastructure than to build new infrastructure in exurban areas. TheCenter for Neighborhood Technology found that, in the Chicago region,the marginal infrastructure costs of new homes on greenÞeld sites is approx-imately $60,000 per dwelling unit. The associated cost of upgradinginfrastructure to connect a new home to existing systems is about $10,000.Business leaders are also beginning to realize the cost savings associatedwith developing in areas with established infrastructure. The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 1. AGING INFRASTRUCTURE.Many Þrst suburbs in the Midwest have olderinfrastructure that suffers from age and limited maintenance. Unfortunately,in some Òhome ruleÓ states, the prevailing opinion is, Òonce you build it,youÕre on your own.Ó In other words, while state governments may be eagerto assist newly developing communities on the fringe, fully developedplaces are expected to manage themselves. When time weakens infrastruc-ture to the point of deterioration and structural obsolescence, states rarelyprovide enough funding to local governments to cover the high costs ofIndeed, some Þrst suburbs are facing serious shortfalls in Þscalresources needed to maintain aging sewer systems. Over the next 30 years,$29 to $52 billion is needed to maintain and improve southeast MichiganÕssewage collection and treatment system.estimated to go toward operating, maintaining and rehabilitating theexisting sewer infrastructure in Wayne County, including the Þrst suburbsjust outside Detroit. The city of South Euclid, Ohio, recently estimated the cost for a complete overhaul of their storm and sanitary sewers at Anything less than proper maintenance of thisvital infrastructure will virtually prohibit any revitalization effort and willpush sewer development into greenÞeld areas. Building and maintainingadditional sewer infrastructure in newer communities, of course, requiresresources, which come, at the expense of the existing system.Declining shopping centers, retail strips, or commercial corridors pose aparticular challenge to Þrst suburbs. Many are struggling with ways to rein-vigorate these places while new shopping malls and big box retail storesgain more and more market share. A recent study sponsored by theCongress for New Urbanism found that the majority of todayÕs ÒgreyÞeldmallsÓ are in moderate-income neighborhoods with older, affordable homes,typical of Þrst suburbs.These malls begin to lose traction in the regionaleconomy for a number of reasons: competition from new malls in thedistant suburbs, changes in area household demographics, or poor manage-ment and maintenance.Éwhile state govern-assist newly developingfringe, fully developed First suburbs areValuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest In his new book, The New Suburban Reality, 25 metropolitan areas according to theirÞscal condition (revenue capacity vs.expenditure needs). This comprehensiveanalysis allows us to examine the suburbanexperience through a different lens. Table 1lists the six types of suburban communitiesthat emerged from this effort.2. FISCAL STRESS.Considering the challenges they face, many Þrst suburbshave municipal budgets that are quite stressed. A municipalityÕs Þscal condi-tion is determined by two factorsÑits ability to raise revenues (revenuecapacity) and the demands and costs it faces in providing local services(expenditure needs). The balance between these factors determines whethera place can provide the services desired by households and businesses at a taxrate that is competitive in the regional economy. In 1993 in the Chicagometropolitan area, 60 Þrst suburbs had a lower tax base per household thanthe central city although about 20 of them have higher levels of social andeconomic needs.Of the eleven communities in the Milwaukee metropolitanarea that declined in property tax base per household from 1986 to 1996,most were Þrst suburbs.Compounding the problem, Þrst suburbs generally lack the central citiesÕ accessto grants, capital, and ßexible Þnancing. These tools would help Þrst suburbsinvest in major commercial and residential redevelopment projects, repairand maintenance of infrastructure, and other neighborhood improvements.Most Þrst suburbs do not meet the low-income targets toqualify for federal and state grants or loans for economicdevelopment. Effectively, Þrst suburbs are penalized for not being in severe states of decline, and are unable toreceive resources for their infrastructure and communi-ties until it is too late.infrastructure building or repair, Þnancingredevelopment (through tax-based assis-tance). The time frame and potentialrevenue streams are different and, mostimportantly, the approach to each may bedifferent depending on the legal and histor-ical context. It may be that methods forinfrastructure Þnancing will differ fromthose for Þnancing operating budgets.Clearly, local government Þnance is highlyThere are, however, three basic Þscal needsof every community. First suburbs may insome instances need to make difficult deci-sions internally about tradeoffs amongthem, but each is distinct and important: The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy First suburbs are generally the Þrst two community types. Places like Harveyand Cicero in the Chicago metropolitan area are emblematic of the suburbsin the Þrst category. Lansdown, outside of Philadelphia, and Bloomington,south of Minneapolis, are representative of the second category. There arealso some Þrst suburbs in category four.OrÞeld found that more than two-thirds of the sample population lived inthe community types that are clearly experiencing some sort of Þscal stress(i.e., those in the Þrst three categories plus central cities). These placeshoused 88 percent of the people living in poverty in these metropolitanareas but they only controlled 56 percent of the local tax capacity. Althoughthey did receive greater than average state aid, their share of total capacity(59 percent) was still well below their shares of total population and peoplein poverty. The implications of all this is that Þscal stress is highly skewedand state-level resources are only able to mitigate this stress by moderateamounts, much to the detriment of Þrst suburbs in the Midwest.3. AGING HOMES AND DECLINING REAL ESTATE VALUE.The residentiallandscape is changing in the Midwest. As people gain wealth, they tend toconsume larger, more expensive parcels of real estate which, in theMidwest, are often not located in Þrst suburbs but are primarily located onthe newly developing fringe. As a result, a considerable portion of thehousing stock in Þrst suburbs becomes less competitive. According tohousing data collected in the 1990 Census for the urban countiessurrounding Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland and Minneapolis, of approxi-mately 1.86 million occupied housing units, 1.25 million (67 percent) werebuilt before 1970, and over 830,000 (45 percent) in the postwar period ofsuburban expansion between 1950Ð1970. TABLE 1: CLASSIFICATIONOFUBURBSBYONDITIONINTHEETROPOLITANCLASSIFICATIONREVENUEEXPENDITURETOTAL CAPACITYNEEDSPOPULATION Very stressed, poor and almost totally segregated.Very lowVery high8Older with high density, growing slowly with relatively low poverty.LowHigh6Lower density areas with higher-than-average poverty and population growth rates.LowHigh26 IV.High growth, low levels of poverty and minorities.AverageHighÐaverage26 High growth edge cities.HighLow7 Very affluent job centers.Very highLowToo many of these houses have depressedmarket values. It is important to recognizethat older homes in some Þrst suburbs suchas Shaker Heights and Beachwood, outsideof Cleveland, are some of the highestpriced in the regional market.However,according to Thomas Bier of the HousingPolicy Program at Cleveland StateUniversity, throughout Cuyahoga County,25 percent of single family homes, approxi-mately 60,000, are valued at under$100,000. Virtually all existing unim-proved, postwar homes are at the bottomof their respective markets. Few homes ofdetails that appeal to todayÕs buyer. Theyhave shown little appreciation in recentyears while the market for larger suburbanhouses and in-town living has grown.Older, mass-produced houses generallyhave two or three modest bedrooms, onebath, a small kitchen and are about 1,100Ð1,300 square feet in size. By 1998, thetypical new home was more than 2,000and the 2000 Census reportsthat last year nearly one in Þve new houseswas larger than 3,000 square feet. Amongtioning, new homes have twice as many Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 4. WORKING FAMILIES.economic prosperity of the last severalyears, the income gap between wealthy,middle-class, and poor Americans has stub-bornly resisted eradication. Over the lasttwo decades, the incomes of our nationÕswealthiest citizens grew substantially,middle-class earnings stalled, and theincomes of the poor declined. Familieswhose earnings are well above the povertylevel ($13,738 for a family of three or morein 2000), but below median householdincome ($42,148 in 2000) are also strug-gling. Their wages have not kept pace withthe rising costs of housing, child care,do not qualify for many income-basedgovernment supports, and many do nottake various tax deductions, such as themortgage interest deduction, because theyuse the standard income tax deduction.The challenge for Þrst suburbs in theMidwest is that a disproportionate numberof low- and moderate-income families livein these places. Welfare recipients arebecoming increasingly concentrated incities and urban countiesas are workingfamilies in the Midwest who receive theEarned Income Tax Credit.Yet, urban(including Þrst suburban) constituenciestypically focus on place-based policies suchas empowerment zones and brownÞelds.While these are important, Þrst suburbanleaders are rarely involved in nationalconversations about larger working familyissues, even when national policies (such as the 1996 welfare reform law) have asigniÞcant impact on these areas.bathrooms as those built just after World War II.In many cases, firstsuburban homes are further burdened by their location on the ÒwrongsideÓ of the region and would cost more to renovate than the value of In addition to having homes that may not meet todayÕs housing needs, Þrstsuburbs are also hurt by consumersÕ desire to buy Òup and outÓ in theirhousing. For instance, from 1997 to 1998, about 86 percent of the home-owners who moved in the Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnatimetropolitan areas bought homes that were 57 to 69 percent more expen-sive than the homes that they had left. In all three of these regions, themore expensive homes were located Òfurther out.ÓThe homes in the Þrstsuburbs are then occupied by lower-income households, which can nega-tively affect the local tax base. This phenomenon is further exacerbated bythe fact that developers tend to build new homes in greenÞelds at a fasterrate than population growth. In turn, this may lead to an excess of housingstock in Þrst suburbs that eventually is abandoned.Finally, some Þrst suburbs have commercial corridors that are declining,and consumer spending that is leaving. These places then become overlyreliant on residential properties to maintain the solvency of their tax base.In Cuyahoga County, for example, two-thirds of the countyÕs property taxdollars come from residential properties. Commercial and industrial proper-ties account for 28 and 6 percent, respectively.In Hennepin County,Minnesota 54 percent of the total tax capacity come from residential properties, up from 47 percent in 1992.Cook County, including the cityof Chicago, has a much more balanced local revenue structure than mostother Þrst suburban counties, having received 45 percent of its total property tax from residential properties in 1997.Balancing local revenuestreams and a beneÞcial mix of uses becomes more and more difficult as The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 5. FRAGMENTED GOVERNANCE.Midwestern metropolitan areas areuniformly characterized by high governmental fragmentation. These areasgenerally have hundreds of local suburban jurisdictions, each with theirown land use, zoning and taxation powers. Table 2 shows the number ofindependent jurisdictions in each major metropolitan area in the Midwest,West, and South. Although it is generally true that smaller units of government are closer totheir constituents and are able to be more responsive to neighborhood andlocal issues, high governmental fragmentation in the Midwest can also beproblematic. First, it exacerbates sprawling development patterns as indi-vidual jurisdictions compete for favored commercial, industrial andresidential activities. Second, it means that many local suburban jurisdic-tions are very small in size. The capacity of these individual jurisdictions tograpple with their challenges is, severely limited. Finally, it represents asigniÞcant challenge for coalition-building and regional cooperation aroundcommon concerns, particularly for Þrst suburban leaders.In sum, despite theirsuburbs face signiÞcantchallenges. In fact, inand challenges are thesame. For instance, theshapes Þrst suburbs and canin serious need of repair insome places. The homes in some Þrstsuburbs that were built close-together withhigh quality materials may no longer becompetitive in todayÕs market. And thecentrality that helps give some suburbs ageographical edge can also be a burdenwhen they are located on the wrong side of the regionÕs prosperity. The differencebetween an asset and a challenge is oftenthe degree of investment, maintenance orpreservation, and the willingness to see theÞrst suburban landscape as one with highpotential. The problem is that Þrst suburbsare not operating on a level playing Þeldwith other parts of the metropolitan area.Current state and federal policies appear toeither directly undermine or ignore Þrstsuburbs in the Midwest. TABLE 2: POVERNMENTALRAGMENTATIONIN U.S. METROPOLITANNUMBER OF LOCAL METROPOLITANNUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTAL LOCALGOVERNMENTS PER AREACOUNTIESSTATESGOVERNMENTS100K RESIDENTS Pittsburgh6141817.7Minneapolis 13234412.3St. Louis 12231212.2Kansas City 11218210.6Cleveland 812679.2Philadelphia1444427.4Milwaukee511136.9Chicago1335676.6 Detroit1013356.2 West/SouthDenver 71743.2Seattle61942.8Houston811232.8Phoenix 21341.2Las Vegas 32130.8San Diego 11190.7 The following are some examples of howcurrent state and federal policies do notsupport and even undermine Þrst suburbs.1. STATES DO NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FISCAL SUPPORT TO FIRST SUBURBS.All state governments distribute some state resources to local governmentsto help finance local public services. The extent to which this occurs varies from state to state and across services. But for the most part, localgovernments are left to their own devicesÑlargely local taxes and somecombination of property, sales and/or income taxÑto pay for such essentialservices as public safety, infrastructure and sanitation. The result is thatlocalities are left with little choice but to compete with neighboring juris-dictions to attract commercial and industrial properties to augment theirtax base, and to repel undesirable properties that detract from it.Many Þrst suburbs have high tax ratesdevelopment (from commercial and indus-trial properties) and generally more servicecosts than their outer suburbs. First suburbsmay simply lack Þscal capacity becausethey are not able to actually raise themoney they need. Some of this incapacityis the result of voters turning downrevenue-raising policies at the ballot box.But also, states impose legal constraints onÞrst suburbs in the form of restricting howpublic monies can be gathered by localjurisdictions (such as bond issuance andspecial taxes). However, Þrst suburbs arealready at a disadvantage when it comes totax rates and simply granting them theability to tax themselves is not sufficient toWhile every Þrst suburban governmentwould like to be in a position of having alow tax/high service community, only a fewcan ever achieve that, and usually not forvery long. The need for greater Þscalcapacity is at the heart of most of the prob-lems facing Þrst suburbs. Since the rulesgoverning a stateÕs relationship to itsmunicipalities vary by state, clusters of Þrstsuburbs must Þrst and foremost understandwhat policy ideas for enhancing local Þscalcapacity have the best chance of success inhave not taken any role in this effort.Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 14 GENERALLY,FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES DO NOT HELP,AND SOMETIMES UNDERMINE,FIRSTSUBURBSÕ ABILITY TO LEVERAGE THEIR CONSIDERABLE ASSETS IN ORDER TO BECOME AND REMAINECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE.THEY TEND TO FOCUS ON CENTRAL CITIES OR NEWLY DEVEL-OPING PLACES ON THE SUBURBAN FRINGE.THEY ALSOSET THE RULES OF DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNANCE.SOTHEY ACTUALLY HAMPER FIRST SUBURBSÕ EFFORTS TOAPPROACH REVITAL-IZATION EFFORTS IN A CONSISTENT ANDSTRATEGIC WAY. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 2. FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY IS CURRENTLY NOT DESIGNED TO MEET THEHOUSING MAINTENANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF FIRST SUBURBS.First suburbs are in dire need of innovative tools to help them and theirfamilies improve their aging housing stock. However, existing federal poli-cies fail to provide much help. The problem is essentially three-fold.First suburbs are less likely to take advantage of some federal programs likethe Empowerment Zone and HOPE VI initiatives, the two primary federalredevelopment programs of the past decade. It is true that Þrst suburbs arenot speciÞcally excluded, but these programs were largely designed to helpinner cities and areas of severe distress. The HOPE VI program is focusedon redesigning severely distressed public housing, which is generally notlocated in Þrst suburbs. Empowerment Zone areas must have a populationof at least 50,000 and a relatively high poverty rate (generally between 20 and 25 percent), both of which are not typical of most Þrst suburbs.While Empowerment Zones will occasionally encompass Þrst suburbs likeEast St. Louis, Illinois and East Chicago, Indiana, they are designed toredevelop distressed places in the inner city.The second problem is that Þrst suburbs are just too small to even qualifyfor some federal programs. The Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) program, for example, funds a variety of community developmentprojects beneÞting low- and moderate-income people, from parks andeconomic development to housing. Municipalities with populations over50,000 are entitled to an annual CDBG grant, and over the years thesefunds have become core operating support for an important network ofmunicipal services, including the Þxing up of neighborhood homes andstreets. However, communities with fewer than 50,000 residents are not,and never have been, eligible for direct allocations, and must competewithin their respective states for non-entitlement CDBG funds. Firstsuburbs are hit particularly hard by this since the vast majority of them donot meet this population criteria and cannot count on this funding foroperational support. In the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, there are 416 municipalities and townshipsÑof those, only one meets the populationthreshold to qualify for direct CDBG support. In the Milwaukee metropol-itan area, only two (1.8 percent) are entitled. There are similar percentagesfor Cleveland (1.5 percent), Philadelphia (1.9 percent) and Minneapolis(2.7 percent).Finally, for many years federal housingprograms have generally not been geared tothe kind of activities that Þrst suburbs need.During the period after World War II,Federal Housing Administration andVeterans Administration programs providedmortgages designed for new single familyhomes, typically located on the suburbanfringe. In effect, the construction of thesemillions of new homes discouraged the reno-vation of existing housing near the core.But then, and even more so today, Þrstsuburbs need housing programs dedicatedto maintenance, improvement and renova-tion. There is, however, little federalattention given to improving Þrst suburbsÕDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopmentÕs (HUD) primary program forrehabilitation is Section 203(k) (where justone mortgage loan is obtained to Þnanceboth property acquisition and the rehabili-single-family homes rehabilitated with thisprogram decreased considerably from about25,000 to 10,600.By contrast, HUDinsured nearly a million loans underSection 203(b) in 2000.in conjunction with 203(k) is the PropertyImprovement Loan Insurance (Title I)program to Þnance light or moderate reha-bilitation. In Þscal year 2000, HUD insured17,976 of these loans, down from 107,000in Þscal year 1996. HUD also administers a mortgage insurance program for older,declining areas (Section 223(e)) thatwould be relevant for some severelydistressed Þrst suburbs, but by no means for all. Nevertheless, there was no activityat all for this program in Þscal year 2000 or 2001. In addition to the federal programs, the private lending market discourageshome-improvement borrowing when home renovation costs are high inrelation to property values. Nor do older homeowners respond well to offersof reÞnancing their homes, which gives them 30 more years of debt in orderto renovate. Home improvement loan products offered by Fannie Mae areavailable to owners with up to 100 percent of area median income, but notbeyondÑand it is often the above-median income homeowner that Þrstsuburban leaders are most anxious to keep in town. Finally, nonproÞtcommunity development corporations (CDCs) have proven to be vital andeffective in addressing neighborhood housing problems. However, mostCDCs operate solely in inner city neighborhoods and may consider anincreased focus on Þrst suburbs a threat to their overall funding.3. FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES NEGLECT A VITAL ELEMENT OF FIRSTSUBURBSÕPOPULATION:WORKING FAMILIES.families whose earnings are above the poverty level, but below medianincome are also overlooked by federal and state policies. They do notqualify for programs aimed at people who are poorer, receive welfare assistance, or have just left the welfare roles. They also do not earn enoughto itemize their tax deductions to enjoy the various beneÞts of middle-class life, such as the home mortgage interest deduction or tax-deductibleretirement accounts.The U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesÕ Child Care andDevelopment Block Grant program allows states to subsidize child careexpenses for working families earning less than 85 percent of the medianincome in their state. However, states often target child care slots tomothers moving from welfare to work, with the result that low-incomeworking families who are not on welfare are denied assistance. Thus,working families in Þrst suburbs often do not get priority access to publicchild care assistance.Health insurance, too, is a challenge forthe working poor and their families. Arecent study by the Center on Budget andPolicy Priorities (CBPP) found that, in1999, 22 percent of poor parents with noearnings were uninsured, while almost halfof poor parents whose income comesmostly from earnings had no insurance.This is relevant for Þrst suburbs because asthe CBPP points out, although uninsuredparents are commonly considered to lackhealth insurance because they are unem-ployed, the vast majority of them are partof working families. States do have tools at their disposal to cover the health needsof working families, particularly the newState ChildrenÕs Health Insurance Program(SCHIP). Yet few states have taken thesteps necessary to expand coverage, increaseawareness, make enrollment simple andaccessible, and ensure that those leaving or denied welfare get the health insurancethey are eligible to receive.Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 16 4. FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES FACILITATE SPRAWL,OUTMIGRATION ANDTHE CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY,WHICH HURTS FIRST SUBURBS LOCATEDIN THE METROPOLITAN CORE.Federal and state policies, taken together, setthe Òrules of the development gameÓ that tend to undermine Þrst suburbsby decentralizing people, jobs and wealth on one hand and concentratingpoverty and working poverty on the other. First suburbs are often caughtbetween these two powerful forces.Public investments in transportation form the skeleton of metropolitanareas and local communities. They dictate whether a metropolitan arearemains compact or sprawls ever outward. Recent federal transportationpromised that transportation policy would begin to serve theneeds of older communities. However, although a great deal of reform hasalready occurred, transportation policies and spendingÑparticularly on thestate levelÑstill generally support the expansion of road capacity at thefringe of and outside metropolitan areas.Built in the interests of nationaldefense and interstate commerce, highways have become commuter roads,enabling people and businesses to live miles from urban centers but stillbeneÞt from metropolitan life. The decisions to construct or widen theseroads or interchanges on the metropolitan periphery are often madewithout consideration of the effects of such projects on Þrst suburbs nearAlso hampering Þrst suburbs with regard to transportation is the fact thatalthough many of them originally sprang up along trolley lines emanatingfrom job-rich center cities, most of those tracks have long since been pulledup. Bus service still exists in these places, but these networks are oftenmarked by agency fragmentation. Mismatches between new jobs on thesuburban fringe and affordable housing in Þrst suburbs aggravates theproblem and undermines those who rely on transit because they are eithertoo poor, too old or too young to drive a private automobile.Tax and regulatory policies have also given added impetus to peopleÕschoices to move further and further out. The deductibility under state andfederal incomes taxes for mortgage interest and property taxes appearsspatially neutral but in practice favors large-lot, low-density suburbancommunities, particularly those with high-income residents.ronmental policies have made the redevelopment of urban land expensiveand cumbersome, making greenÞeld land especially attractive. At the statelevel, the interplay of governance, land use and tax law give local govern-ments incentives to Òchase the ratablesÓ and make growth decisions (e.g.,building the new mall or office facility) without any consideration of howsuch decisions affect the region and neighboring jurisdictions.Many states have long allowed exurbanmunicipalities to annex large amounts ofland, often undeveloped, while Þrst suburbsremain land-locked. These exurbancommunities get to enjoy the beneÞts ofannexation and new development (e.g.,increased tax revenue, proffers from devel-opers). The Village of Huntley in exurbanChicago is more than Þve times the size itwas just ten years ago. Other nearbyAurora have also more than doubled theirphysical size.First suburbs closer in thecore are not able to capture more growthsimply by drawing themselves biggerboundaries. In this way, state policiesallowing easy annexations directly favorthe enlargement and increased Þscalcapacity of suburbs on the fringe overIn general, federal and state policies can do substantially more to help Þrst suburbssprawl, Þx their housing stock and close thegap between what working families needand what their incomes can provide. The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 17 Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest In many ways, the federal and state reformagenda for Þrst suburbs is fairly simple:focus on strengthening existing communi-ties. The following framework wasdeveloped after consultation with leadersfrom healthy, stable, and declining Þrstsuburbs in the Midwest. It presents Þvestrategies, in the context of state andfederal policies, for revitalizing older, inner-ring Þrst suburban economies,strengthening established neighborhoodsand leveraging public investments. IV. FIRST SUBURBS IN THE MIDWEST HAVE A UNIQUE SET OF MARKET AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS ANDFISCAL,GOVERNANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES THAT SET THEM APART BOTH FROM THE CENTRALCITIES THEY SURROUND AND THE NEWER SUBURBS THAT SURROUND THEM.IT IS CRITICAL FOR FIRSTSUBURBS TO DEVELOP AND ARTICULATE THEIR OWN POLICY AGENDA SO THEY CAN BE WELL-POSITIONED IN NATIONAL AND STATE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT GROWTH AND REINVESTMENT.THERE ARE POLICY LEVERS THAT NEED TO BE PUSHED ATFEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS TO HELP FIRST SUBURBS WORK TOWARDS THIS NEW AGENDA. UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXTSPRAWLPROMOTEEXPANDOPPORTUNITIESFOR WORKING FAMILIES ANDSTIMULATE FISCALPLAYING FIELDFederal and State Policy Agenda for FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIESNEED TO HELP FIRST SUBURBS UNDER-STAND THE CONTEXT FOR REFORM.individual jurisdictions, Þrst suburbs needto be able to understand the market anddemographic trends in their localities andregions, recognize the assets and liabili-ties they inherit and, based on a frankassessment of their economic and socialsituation, re-envision their competitiveposition. As a collection of jurisdictions,they need to be able to understand howtheir economic and social conditionscompare to those of the central city aswell as other, newer suburban jurisdic-tions in the metropolitan area. Anaccurate understanding of their condi-tionÑboth individually and collectivelyÑwill help drive policy decisions on thestate and federal levels. Unfortunately,there is little research and little data onthe speciÞc experience of Þrst suburbs. Priority Area: PROVIDE REQUISITE DATA AND RESEARCH SUPPORT TOEXAMINE THE FIRST SUBURBAN EXPERIENCE.First suburbs need to be able toaccess the most recent empirical data and objective analyses. This informa-tion needs to be collected and updated constantly, so jurisdictions canbenchmark their individual and collective progress on key social andeconomic indicators. The 2000 Census, in particular, provides an opportu-nity to ascertain the condition of older communities and categorize Þrstsuburbs according to their experiences, governance and relation to thecentral city. However, much more dedicated research is necessary. We needanalyses about how regions are growing and what policy levers and trendscontribute to that growth. We need more sub-jurisdictional analyses aboutwhat is occurring in Þrst suburbs and what kind of assets they have. Itwould be valuable to identify the common challenges they are facingthrough the creation of a standard typology that identiÞes what we meanby a Þrst suburb. Such analysis would help Þrst suburbs understand theircommon and distinct challenges and provide a framework for discussingOHIOÕS URBAN UNIVERSITY PROGRAM CONDUCTS RESEARCH FORSTATE DECISION MAKERS AND FIRST SUBURBS:The state of Ohio offers the mostadvanced model of a university-based research consortium.The state has createdthe Urban University Program (UUP),consisting of Cleveland State,Ohio Stateand six other state universities.Every year,the state funds the UUP to conductresearch on a broad array of urban and metropolitan issues.Predictable fundinghas helped the UUP create an informal network of academics and practitionerswho share Þndings and collaborate with each other on important projects.Cleveland State UniversityÕs Urban Center,for example,directly supports OhioÕsFirst Suburbs Consortium by providing documentation of the growing plight ofClevelandÕs Þrst suburbs as well as organizational and technical assistance.Formore information:http://urban.csuohio.edu/~uup.GREATER PHILADELPHIAÕS METROPOLITAN PLANNINGORGANIZATION RELEASES STUDIES ON FIRST SUBURBS:Bolstered by federalaugmentation of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)in general,theDelaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Philadelphia) has recognized andfocused extensively on the effects of decentralization and disinvestment in Þrstsuburbs.The DVRPC has produced a series of reports that help leaders and resi-dents understand the regionÕs Þrst suburbs and develop recommendations fortheir improvement.For more information:http://www.dvrpc.org.The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy particular, provides anopportunity to ascertainexperiences, governancecentral city. The Þscal pinch of Þrst suburbs is clearlyseen when it comes to school Þnancing.Local revenues provide just under half ofTo generate these funds, localhigher the assessed valuation of property ina district, the greater its ability to raisefunds. However, acting alone, some Þrstsuburbs may not be able to generate eventhe minimum funding needed though theytax themselves at rates several times higherthan wealthy districts. The Jennings,Missouri, school district on the northwestborder of the city of St. Louis, had thethird-highest property-tax rate in thecounty. However, since the assessed value is still low, the district still had less localmoney per student than most other districts.The school district in Wilkinsburg, one of the poorest Þrst suburbs in PittsburghÕsAllegheny County, pays the highest property tax rate in the county.Healthy, a Cincinnati Þrst suburb, alsoproperty wealth per pupil in HamiltonCounty, but also one of the highest property tax rates.Second, FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES NEED TO LEVEL THE FISCALPLAYING FIELD FOR FIRST SUBURBS.Good schools, safe streets, competitivetaxes, efficient services and a transparent and effective system for theredevelopment of land and infrastructure are all considered top policypriorities for Þrst suburban leaders. Yet, on their own, Þrst suburbs oftendo not have the Þscal capacity to provide these basic services efficientlyand competitively. Unlike central cities and many growing suburbs, Þrstsuburbs cannot depend on large business, retail and industrial activity toundergird their tax base. First suburbs are, therefore, often stuck betweena rock and a hard place. If they fail to maintain and upgrade schools,families with school-age children will leave. On the other hand, if theyraise taxes to provide more funding for schools, other families may leavein search of lower taxes. Without state or federal intervention, Þrstsuburbs are saddled with an impossible balancing act between deliveringbasic services and maintaining competitive tax rates.Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 20 Priority Area: ENSURE FISCAL EQUITY FOR BASIC SERVICES.suburbs need a level Þscal playing Þeld if they are to provide the basic serv-ices residents and businesses demand. Only the states can ensure that eachlocal jurisdiction is able to provide basic services at a competitive tax rate.First suburbs can pursue several state-wide reforms to ensure that they havethe Þscal wherewithal to compete for businesses and residents. The funda-mental prescription here is for some type of revenue sharing, as is beingdone in Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin. In such cases, the stateprovides aid to local jurisdictions based on a variety of factors, includingvalue of the local tax base. Another state strategy is school equity Þnancing,which tries to equalize funding for schools through a variety of mechanisms.A Þnal potential state strategy is tax-base sharing, in which a portion oflocal tax revenues in economically strong communities is earmarked for aregional pool that is redistributed to localities with weak Þscal capacity.WISCONSIN STATE REVENUE SHARING:An important source of localrevenue in the state of Wisconsin comes in the form of state revenue sharing,which is distributed based on several criteria including population,the existence ofutility properties that are not subject to municipal taxes,and the condition of themunicipal tax base (their Òaidable revenuesÓ).In 1997,the Wisconsin Departmentof Revenue reported that almost $1 billion in state revenues were shared amongjurisdictions for use as they see Þt.This unconditional program greatly helps Þscallystrapped Þrst suburbs through its three policy goals:1) to help municipalitiesprovide their residents with basic services without relying on unduly high propertytaxes;2) to equalize revenue raising ability among local governments,and 3) toprovide compensation for municipalities that are home to utility companies thatprovide services beyond local borders.For more information:http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/Statutes.html.MINNESOTAÕS FISCAL DISPARITIES LAW:MinnesotaÕs Þscal disparities law has allocated 40 percent of property tax revenuefrom new commercial and industrial development among seven Twin Cities areacounties and 187 jurisdictions on a per capita wealth basis.Funds in this metropol-itan tax base poolÑaround $400 million in 1999Ñare then redistributed tocommunities in inverse proportion to net commercial tax capacity.Without thiscritical revenue sharing strategy,the per capita commercial-industrial tax base of the wealthiest jurisdiction in the pool would be 21 times that of the poorest.The Minnesota Citizens League estimates that the law reduces this gap to four to one.The law has become a vital element of the local property tax structure in the Minneapolis metropolitan area.For more information:http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/Þscaldis.pdf .The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy First suburbs need aif they are to provide thebasic services residents PENNSYLVANIAÕS 1995 LANDRECYCLING PROGRAM ACCELERATESBROWNFIELDS CLEAN-UP:This program isoperated by the stateÕs Department ofEnvironmental Protection encourages voluntarycleanup and reuse of contaminated commercialand industrial sitesÑcommonly known asÒbrownÞelds.ÓThis program has three impor-tant elements:a dedicated source of funding,asliding scale of cleanliness based on intendeduses of the site and a release from futureliability.More than 700 projects have beeninitiated under this program to remediatecontaminated land,which is mostly located in the Þrst suburbs outside Pittsburgh andPhiladelphia.More than 15,000 people are now employed at these formerly abandonedproperties.For more information:http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/landrecy.Third, FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES MUST HELP FIRST SUBURBS STIMU-LATE HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.As discussed above,Þrst suburbs have assets and advantages that make them particularlyhave established infrastructure, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, andeasy access to commercial centers (sometimes located in traditional towncenters). Unlike the central city, Þrst suburbs have often become thelogistical center of the region as metropolitan areas have spread out.They are convenient both to the traditional city downtown as well as tonew employment areas, airports and other suburban and urban nodes ofbusiness and commercial activity. States, in particular, need to help Þrstsuburbs build on these assets by creating places where retail, business,pedestrian and social activities can thrive.It is critical for Þrst suburbs to adopt (and advocate for) balanced housingstrategies. First suburbs in the Midwest are, at their core, residentialcommunities. To remain healthy and vital, they need a mix of renovatedand new housing that appeals to a broad cross-section of families in theirregion. Balanced housing strategies supported by states can: (a) enablehomeowners to maintain and upgrade their properties; (b) provide incen-tives for families to purchase homes in the community; and (c) ensure thataffordable housing is widely available throughout the larger metropolis anddoes not become the exclusive responsibility of older communities.Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest MARYLANDÕS COMMUNITY LEGACY PROGRAM TARGETS INVESTMENT TO STRUGGLINGThis program is designed to assist established,Òat-riskÓneighborhoods that are experiencingdecline and disinvestment,but have the potential to again be vibrant places to live and work.The decline must beevident in terms of quantiÞable elements such as increasing commercial or housing vacancies,or population,educa-tion and/or income declines.The potential for vibrancy must be evident through Þrst-suburban characteristics such asproximity to major employers,town centers,or educational or other institutions;and also through demonstratedpartnerships with local banks,other businesses,and community organizations.The program funds ($10 million forÞscal year 2002) are very ßexible and are intended to support a wide range of capital and non-capital projectsincluding public infrastructure for redevelopment projects,development of mixed-use projects,and strategic demoli-tion and land acquisition that can make redevelopment possible.For more information:http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/legacy.Priority Area: PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO MAKE FIRST SUBURBSÕCOMMER-CIAL SPACE COMPETITIVE.In many states, Þrst suburbs need revenues fromcommercial taxes to survive. However, declining commercial corridors,contaminated commercial sites, outdated infrastructure and general neglectkeep businesses away. It is imperative to invest in these commercial areasreduce over-reliance on residential property taxes. Such efforts are often toomuch for Þrst suburbs to address on their own. Priority Area: PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR HOUSING RENOVATION ANDCOMMUNITY REVITALIZATION.As discussed above, households in theMidwest tend to move up and outÑthat is, up to more expensive housinglocated further out to the periphery. In most cases, age of housing is notwhat pushes upwardly mobile households out of Þrst suburbsÑdecline and design are the culprits. First suburbs need tools and resources to helpexisting and new homeowners make home repairs, renovations and expandtheir homes in order to maintain neighborhood stability and propertyvalues and to ensure that the housing stock remains attractive and currentwith consumer demand. TAX CREDITS TO RENOVATE HISTORIC AND OTHER OLDERThe State of Missouri has developed tax credit programs speciÞ-cally designed to promote redevelopment and reinvestment in Þrst suburbs suchas those in St.Louis County.The Neighborhood Preservation Act provides taxcredits to homeowners to offset the costs of investment in repair and construc-tion of owner-occupied housing in moderate-income neighborhoods.Many St.Louis County municipalities qualify in their entirety.There are several efforts else-where to provide tax credits speciÞcally designed to redevelop housing and otherstructures in older,historic communities.They exist on the federal,statewide (e.g.,Maryland,Ohio,Indiana and Wisconsin) and local levels (e.g.,Euclid).Federal taxlaw (the historic rehabilitation tax credit),offers a 20 percent tax credit for therehabilitation of historic buildings and a 10 percent tax credit for the rehabilitationof non-historic buildings built before 1936.Since 1976,over 25,000 buildingsÑhave been preserved using this credit,representing an investment of over $16billion.However,the credit is not available for buildings to be used exclusively as an ownerÕs residence.Many state programs work in tandem with the federalcredits.In Michigan those who rehabilitate some historic properties can apply for a credit against state general income tax of up to 25 percent of the rehabilitation expenditures.For more information on the Missouri program:http://www.ecodev.state.mo.us/cd/npa.For more information on the federalprogram:http://www.irs.gov/bus_info/mssp/rehab1.html.MINNESOTAÕS THIS OLD HOUSEPROGRAM PROVIDES INCENTIVES FOR HOMEIMPROVEMENTS:The state legislature enactedthe ÒThis Old HouseÓProgram in 1993 toprovide owners of older homes in Minneapolisand Þrst suburbs in Hennepin County with an incentive to renovate their properties.The program has since been expandedstatewide.Last year over 49,000 propertiesbeneÞted from the program,which is adminis-tered through each county assessorÕs office.Through the program,owners who makehome improvements can defer paying propertytaxes on the increased value for up to tenyears.Owner-occupied homes,duplexes andtriplexes with an estimated market value(before improvements) of less than $400,000are eligible.At the end of ten years,the valuethat has been excluded is added back to theassessment as follows:There are no incomerequirements for participation but to qualify,the property owner must permit an appraiserto inspect the physical improvements,whichmust add at least $5,000 in value to the prop-erty to be eligible for exclusion.The value ofimprovements is determined by the assessorand relates to the additional market valueadded to the property,not to the actual costof the improvements.For more information:http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/proptax/factshts/The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 23 Regional housing strategiesstate level that expand thesupply of affordablehousing, particularly in Priority Area: SUPPORT METROPOLITAN-WIDE FAIR SHARE HOUSINGMany older communities and Þrst suburbs already containan ample supply of housing that low- and moderate-income homebuyersand renters can afford. By contrast, growing exurban communities oftenpractice exclusionary zoning, limiting the supply of affordable housing(particularly rental housing) that can be built. The concentration of afford-able housing in older communities places undue burdens on these places,forces many workers to live far from their jobs and exacerbates unbalancedgrowth patterns in the metropolis. Regional housing strategies need to beenacted at the state level that expand the supply of affordable housing,particularly in rapidly growing areas. In the end, all jurisdictions in a metrop-olis should be required to contribute their Òfair shareÓ of such housing.A NUMBER OF STATES IMPLEMENT LAWS TO EXPAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING:A number of states are making efforts toensure that affordable housing is located throughout their metropolitan areas and not concentrated in just a few older communitWashington StateÕs growth management law requires localities to make adequate provisions for existing and projected housing neefor households at all income levels.States like Massachusetts are taking a different approach by streamlining and simplifying tfor developers to construct affordable housing.Massachusetts also denies state assistance subsidies to localities with exclusionaryzoning or housing policies.California state law mandates that local governments adopt housing elements in their general plans.Thousing elements consist of an identiÞcation and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals,poliquantiÞed objectives,Þnancial resources,and scheduled programs for the preservation,improvement,and development of housing.The housing element expressly includes rental and affordable housing and requires jurisdictions to make adequate provisions forhouseholds at all income levels.SigniÞcant activity is also occurring at the county level.In 1973,Montgomery County,Maryland bethe Þrst jurisdiction in the country to successfully enact an inclusionary zoning regulation,the Moderately Priced Dwelling UniOrdinance.Applied to developments of 50 units or more,this ordinance requires developers to build 12.5 to 15 percent of the units as affordable,in return for density bonuses of 20 to 22 percent.A similar ordinance exists in Fairfax County,Virginia.For moreinformation on the Washington State law:http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcwchapters/Ch1024.exe.For information on the California law:http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd.For information on the Washington,DC area ordinances:http://www.brookings.edu/urban/issues/Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 24 FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES NEED TO EXPAND OPPORTUNI-TIES FOR WORKING FAMILIES AND THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.There is aclear consensus in American life and government policy about the valueand necessity of work. First suburbs have a key stake in a national agendafor investing in working families and their children. People who work STATES CAN MAXIMIZE BENEFITS OF CHILDRENÕS HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM:States can currentlycover more low-income parents with Medicaid and expand coverage to children and their parents under the newSCHIP.Yet while many families with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level are now Priority Area: INVEST IN CHILDREN.Many national leaders make apersuasive case for the social beneÞts of early-childhood education andcare. The federal government should pursue a plan for universal early child-hood programs. Such a plan not only increases poor childrenÕs capacity to do well in school, it also makes work easier for single mothers, thosemoving off of welfare, or working families, all of whom need safe places for their children to spend the day.STATES CAN CREATE THEIR OWN REFUNDABLE EARNED INCOME TAXAlthough state budgets are no longer as abundant as they were in the1990s,refundable state EITCs continue to make sense.As they did in the lastrecession,a number of states are considering hikes in regressive sales taxes,whichare more burdensome to low-income families than anyone elseÑArizona andNorth Carolina have already enacted such increases.A refundable state EITC can offset the negative impact of a sales tax hike on low-income families,who may be the hardest hit by a recession.By targeting these families for relief,statescan avoid balancing their budgets on the backs of the working poor.For moreinformation:http://www.brookings.edu/urban/eitc/eitcnationalexsum.htm.Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest Priority Area: MAKE WORK PAY.The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) hasprovided a model for how government can reduce poverty and encourage work among low-income families. Today, the EITC is the largest federal program targeted at the workingpoor, providing over $30 billion annually to 18 million families. Urban and Þrst suburbanareas are among the largest beneÞciaries of the EITC; in 1998, for example, families in thecity of Chicago received $307 million from the credit, and those in Cook County suburbsSixteen states have built on the success of the federal EITC byenacting earned income credits within their own state income tax codes. In the Midwest,these states include Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin.FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS CAN EXPAND CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE:Over the long run,universal preschooleducation will be an important public policy choice for working families.In the shorter term states can help create a less fragsystem of child care,by providing assistance not only to families on welfare,but also to families who have made the transition welfare to work and to the working poor.All states should establish eligibility for child care based on income rather than recereceipt of cash assistance.States should have a seamless system of child care policies so parents are not forced to Þnd new providersor reapply for child care assistance as they move into the workforce.The federal government,for its part,needs to further increfunding for the child care block grant to give states more ßexibility and resources to provide child care assistance to both werecipients and low-income working families.The federal government should also consider consolidating its current tax credits folies with child care expenses and young children to create a single,more targeted and fully refundable credit that would better servelow-to-moderate income families with pre-school age children. STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES NEED TO CURB SPRAWL ANDPROMOTE REINVESTMENT.The previous set of strategies - to understandthe context for reform, to improve the Þscal capacity of Þrst suburbs, tosupport the redevelopment of older homes and commercial corridors andto invest in working families - are all critical to ensure that Þrst suburbshave the resources to attract and maintain businesses and families.However, additional reforms must be taken to change large scale trans-portation and land use policies that tilt investment and growth away fromPriority Area: REFORM STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICIES.portation policies should be reformed to allow for greater balance betweenhighway expansion, infrastructure repair and maintenance and alternativetransportation strategies, including public transit. Federal funds should beused to build new highways in metropolitan and adjoining areas only inexceptional circumstances and only when linked to the expansion ofaffordable housing. Further, decisions on new highways, new interchangesand widening of existing roads should be preceded by and consistent withstudies of their potential impact on existing communities. The federalgovernment also needs to put highway and transit spending on more equalfooting than currently allowed. More than half of the states have constitu-tional or statutory provisions requiring that the state gasoline tax be spentexclusively on roads and bridges. Of the twelve Midwestern states atleast ten restrict the use of the gasoline tax.tional and statutory barriers put transit and alternativetransportation projects at a disadvantage for receiving federaland state funds. Since federal funds require a state match,transit is forced to compete with non-transportation priori-ties for general state revenues.The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy The federal governmentmore equal footing than SOME STATES HAVE IMPLEMENTEDFIX-IT-FIRST POLICIES:Two states recentlypassed ÒÞx-it-ÞrstÓinfrastructure policies.In2000,the New Jersey legislature passed a billthat emphasizes a ÒÞx-it-ÞrstÓtransportationpolicy.SpeciÞc provisions require the statedepartment of transportation to focus on therehabilitation and technical augmentation ofexisting transportation facilities,with newhighway construction to come only afterexplicit approval of the legislature.In 1999,theState of Illinois passed Illinois FIRST (a Fund forInfrastructure,Roads,Schools and Transit).It isa Þve-year,$12 billion program to restoreaging roads and bridges,revitalize mass transit,repair Þrst suburban schools,clean up urbanbrownÞelds,upgrade water and sewer systemsand improve quality of life throughout theState.Over $1.6 billion of this funding isearmarked for projects within Cook County.For more information:http://illinoisgis.ito.state.il.us/ilÞrst.Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest suburban areas in itsRevising the spatial distribution and programmatic focus of state trans-portation funds will help level the playing Þeld between older and newercommunities. Transportation reform will enable the Þnancing of majorinfrastructure repair projects in cities and Þrst suburbs. Greater funding forpublic transit and alternative transportation strategies will help buildlivable, accessible communities that respond to the needs of an aging popu-lation and provide greater choices for metropolitan residents. A balancedtransportation policy will also weed the subsidy out of sprawl and compelexurban retail and commercial and residential projects to stand on theirown merits. In summary, state and federal transportation reform can helprevitalize older communities where compact mixed-use development, infra-structure and services already exist.MARYLANDÕS PRIORITY FUNDING AREAS SPENDS TAXPAYER DOLLARSONLY ON SUPPORTING EXISTING COMMUNITIES:In 1997,Maryland enactedÒsmart growthÓlegislation to steer major state road,sewer,school,economicdevelopment and related funds away from farms and open spaces to oldercommunities where infrastructure is already in place.The Maryland law explicitlyincludes Þrst suburban areas in its designation of these priority funding areas.The law also allows counties to designate other areas if they meet certain guidelines.These rules do not stop development;they simply prioritize where the state government can invest its Þnite infrastructure resources and taxpayerdollars.The Metropolitan Philadelphia Policy Center polled residents in the entireÞve county Philadelphia metropolitan area and found overwhelming publicsupport (85 percent) for giving older communities priority funding to supporttheir infrastructure.For more information:http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/smartpfa.htm. PENNSYLVANIAÕS NEW LAND USE LAW PROMOTES PLANNINGBETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES:In June 2000,as part of PennsylvaniaÕs GrowingSmarter Initiative,then-Governor Tom Ridge signed two bills that createdsweeping changes to land use planning in the state.The new law allows localities to designate growth areas as part of their comprehensive land use plans andencourages coordination on the local,county and regional levels.It also allowslocalities to transfer development rights within and between municipalities,towhere development is desired.Localities are also given greater ability to withstandlegal challenges to their plans and state agencies are given the authority to grant funding priority to localities that plan collaboratively.For more information:http://www.landuseinpa.com.The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Priority Area: DISCLOSE GROWTHAND SPENDING PATTERNS.States shoulditan areas with a clear spatial analysis ofhow state resources are allocated. In 2001, North Carolina became the ninthstate to require annual disclosure of someeconomic development subsidies and otherDisclosure of state spendingpatterns is not an onerous burden; in fact,it will subject state bureaucracies to thesame standards that now govern privateinstitutions like banks and thrifts. Also,federal and state departments of transporta-organizations must begin to disclose annu-ally where their investments go. Currently,it is easier (because of federal law) todiscover where private banks lend thanwhere public transportation bureaucraciesspend. With new mapping technology, it has become possible to make the spatial patterns of spending intelligible toMINNESOTAÕS COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING SUPPORTS MIXED-USEAND COMPACT DEVELOPMENT:The Minnesota Community-Based Planning Act of1997 provides local jurisdictions with grants and technological assistance to designand implement enhanced planning.The Act helps localities strengthen communitiesthrough planning and urban design that supports mixed land use,compact devel-opment and access to public transit and bicycle and pedestrians paths.In a relatedeffort,the Metropolitan Council in Minneapolis/St.Paul has designated six oppor-tunity sites in the region for mixed-used,pedestrian-oriented development.TheMet Council has received funding from MinneapolisÕMcKnight Foundation to assistthis effort.Of the six sites targeted for redevelopment,four are located in Þrstsuburban areas,one is in an industrial site in the core,and one is in a historicdowntown in a rapidly growing area on the fringe.For more information:http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/laws01.pdf. MINNESOTA SUBSIDYACCOUNTABILITY LAW MANDATES PUBLICDISCLOSURE OF SPENDING:law mandates an annual reporting procedurefor tracking economic development grants,loans and tax increment Þnancing.Each local,regional or state agency that provides thesubsidies must report both the goals andresults.A similar law has been enacted inMassachusetts.For more information:http://www.ctj.org/itep/gjf.htm.Priority Area: ENACT REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE GROWTH MANAGE-MENT AND ENHANCED LAND USE PLANNING.Statewide efforts to managemetropolitan growth by encouraging compact, walkable, transit-friendlyneighborhoods while protecting open spaces, farms and forests directlybeneÞt Þrst suburbs in the Midwest. Fragmented land use controls andcompetition for local tax base within a metropolitan area cause unproduc-tive intra-metropolitan competition that can exacerbate sprawlingdevelopment patterns and further undermine suburbs near the core. As discussed above, state governmentshave enormous inßuence on metropolitangrowth patterns, mainly to the detriment of Þrst suburbs. It is through state policyreformsÑrelated to transportation, landsystemic changes in growth patterns arelikely to be achieved. To date, the interestsof Þrst suburbs have not been well repre-sented at the state level. First suburbs tendto be junior members of larger coalitionsthat represent the broad interests of metro-politan areas. The special interests of small, Þrst suburban jurisdictions rarelyreceive a fair hearing from state legislatorsValuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 30 V. FEDERAL AND STATE POLICY REFORMS WILL NOT OCCUR IN A VACUUM.FIRST SUBURBS ALSO NEED TO SHAREWITH EACH OTHER THE KIND OF LOCAL REFORMS THAT LEAD TO SYSTEMIC,MEANINGFUL CHANGE IN THEIRFISCAL,ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HEALTH.FIRST SUBURBS ALSO NEED TO FORM THEIR OWN COALITIONS TOPUSH FOR REFORMS REGIONALLY AND IN THE STATE CAPITOL.ADVANCING NECESSARY POLICY REFORMS WILLREQUIRE FIRST SUBURBS TO OPERATE MORE AS A FORMAL NETWORK OFLOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAN AS A FRAGMENTED COLLECTION OFPAROCHIAL JURISDICTIONS.IT WILL REQUIRE THEM,IN SHORT,TOCHANGE THE WAYTHEY DO BUSINESS.First suburbs need to build political coali-tions for state reform that reßect theirunique issues and challenges. These coali-tions will, by necessity, reach acrossgeographical, partisan and ideological lines.They will be difficult to build and sustain.Yet, if created, coalitions of Þrst suburbsmay wield enormous inßuenceÑaligningon some issues with the central city, onother issues with rapidly growing suburbsand rural areas. To be most effective, thesecoalitions should be funded and staffed.Special relationships should be forged withuniversity and other research partners toprovide these organizations with inde-pendent analysis and policy positions. The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 31 Northeastern Ohio First Suburbs Consortium Forms Strong Alliance for Policy Advocacy and GovernanceOne of the best examples of Þrst suburban political organization is in the Cleveland metro-politan area. The Northeastern Ohio First Suburbs Consortium consists of a group ofofficials from the east and west sides of Cuyahoga County organized to discuss theircommon strengths, needs, and problems. The Consortium is made up of 12 municipalities,of varying economic health, and enjoys the personal participation of mayors, other electedofficials such as council members and staff from member planning and economic develop-ment offices. Since its creation in 1997 (it was formerly established as a Council of Governments in2000) the Consortium has achieved considerable success. It recognized early on that stateand federal policies were making them less competitive with high growth areas and realizedthat regional and statewide reform in key areas such as transportation and housing wasessential for their survival. To pursue this reform agenda, the group has worked to encouragethe establishment of similar organizations in the stateÕs other metropolitan areas and theyhave contributed to a ÒSmart Growth Agenda for OhioÓ focusing on reinvestment inÒmatureÓ areas statewide.The Consortium initiated major cooperative projects that address economic developmentand housing renovation by collaborating with one other and sharing resources. It was ableto study the commercial retail districts in each of its member cities by teaming up withprivate companies and foundations. It has also launched a $300,000 initiative with privatedesign and architecture Þrms to market and renovate Þrst suburbsÕ housing stockÑparticu-larly bungalows.In 1999, the Consortium worked closely with Cuyahoga County officials in the establish-ment of the Home Loan Enhancement Program (HELP), a linked deposit program thatoffers loans to homeowners at least three percentage points below the rate that wouldotherwise apply. HELP was created with the recognition that even if the county govern-ment Òcannot control what happens at the edge [of the metropolitan area], there are stillthings that can be done to strengthen the coreÓThe goal is to encourage residents toremain in county and its Þrst suburbs by giving them the viable option of enhancing orrehabilitating their home, rather than purchasing a newer home on the metropolitan fringe.More than $30 million in loans have been made to rehabilitate nearly 3,000 homes sincethe programÕs inception. The First Suburbs Consortium in the Cleveland areas has recently hired a lobbyist to helparticulate their agenda in the state capitol. Statewide, the Consortium has about 30member jurisdictions representing more than 700,000 citizens, making them a formidableforce that the state government cannot afford to ignore. For more information:http://www.Þrstsuburbs.org.on that state andfederal policies were making [older suburbs] areas and realizedthat regional andin key areas such The moment is ripe for reform. A smartgrowth ÒmovementÓ is emerging across thecounty about how to better grow andinvest in our nationÕs communities. Anumber of states have implemented, or arestarting to consider, major policies relatedto growth management, smart reinvest-ment, land use and transportation reform.And Midwestern states are emerging assome of the key areas where such policiesare being promoted. In fact, in the last twoyears, governors in each of the states high-lighted in this reporthave been vocalabout their support for various smartgrowth and urban reinvestment strategies.Of course, although national model programs are emerging in states likeIllinois and Pennsylvania, much more fundamental and systemic reform is clearly needed. Ultimately, the goals of curbing sprawl and promotingreinvestment in older communities will require substantial change to a long list of state policies and practices. Some of those policies and prac-ticesÑmetropolitan governance, growth management, transportationreformÑ appear to be generally understood and are receiving some level ofattention. Yet there are other issues (e.g., affordable and fair share housingin the suburbs, fragmentation of welfare and workforce systems, inequitableValuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 32 ALTHOUGH THERE IS A COMMON EXPERIENCE AMONG MANY MIDWESTERN FIRST SUBURBS,IT IS GENERALLYNOT BEING RECOGNIZED - OR VOICED - AT THE REGIONAL,STATE OR NATIONAL LEVELS.IN ORDER TOCRAFT STRATEGIES THAT TRULY PROMOTE REINVESTMENT IN THE CORE OF OUR METROPOLITAN AREAS ANDMAINTAIN EXISTING COMMUNITIES,STATES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT IGNORE A FIRSTSUBURBAN AGENDA.THE METROPOLITAN CORE IS NO LONGER LIMITED TO OUR CENTRAL CITIES.CREATINGPOLICIES THAT ARE TAILORED TO THE NEEDS AND REALITIES OF FIRSTSUBURBS IS CRITICAL FOR A REAL METROPOLITAN REFORM AGENDA THAT AIMS TO CHANGE METROPOLITAN GROWTH PATTERNS,PROMOTES REINVESTMENT IN CORE COMMUNITIES AND INCREASES OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW-INCOME WORKING FAMILIES.school Þnancing) that are equally impor-tant. These other issues more directlyaddress patterns of social and economicexclusion in metropolitan America. Such patterns impact metropolitan growthdynamics as much as traditional issues likehighway building, household formation andWith metropolitan strategies on the mindof many legislators, other political leadersand key constituencies, leaders from Þrstsuburbs have an opportunity to cometogether and build a policy agendaÑandthe right coalitionsÑto ensure that thenext level of reforms go beyond open spacepreservation to more comprehensiveapproaches that respond to the needs ofexisting communities. The futures of Þrstsuburbs are completely intertwined. Theywill need to act in alignment in order toAs the 2000 Census data is rolled out in deeper and deeper detail, it will paint a picture of how cities and Þrst suburbs are faring. If current trends persist for many Þrst suburbs, these areas could look a lot more distressed over the nexttwo decades. Now is the time to altermetropolitan policy. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 1. WHILE FIRST SUBURBAN COUNTIES ARE GAINING POPULATION AS A WHOLE,SOME INDIVIDUAL SUBURBS ARE LOSINGPOPULATION.The 2000 Census conÞrms that the decentralization of economic and residential life is still the dominant trend throughoutthe Midwest. While, overall, the largest 100 cities grew in the 1990s, most grew at a slower rate than their metropolitanareas. This pattern of faster metropolitan growth was true whether the cityÕs population was growing, stagnating or falling.The 2000 Census also conÞrms that, save for a few exceptions, communities in the Midwest and Northeast continue to loseor maintain their populations. Of the 100 largest cities in 1990, 26 either lost population or did not gain by 2000. Of these26 cities, all but one was located in the Midwest, Northeast or Southeast.Table A1 looks at population changes in the primary Þrst suburban county of ten cities in the Midwest. In this analysis, theregionÕs central city was omitted in order to paint a better picture of population change in these Þrst suburbs. Table 1 illus-trates that all of these Þrst suburban counties, except Allegheny, experienced modest population increases in the 1990s.This population growth was possible even in the face of central city loss. The central cities of these ten suburban coun-tiesÑexcept for Chicago, Columbus and MinneapolisÑsaw their populations drop or stay the same (in Kansas City only)this past decade. However, these are core urban counties grew at a slower pace than the metropolitan area as a whole.When we look more closely at the individual Þrst suburbs that make up these counties, we discover that the good news maynot be universally shared. Nearly two-thirds of Cuyahoga CountyÕs cities, for example, experienced some population loss(see Table A2). OPULATIONHANGEINPOPULATION POPULATIONPOPULATION CHANGECHANGE FOR FIRST SUBURBAN COUNTY199020001990-2000METRO AREAHennepin County, MN (w/o Minneapolis) 664,048733,58269,53410.5%16.9%Franklin County, OH (w/o Columbus)328,527357,50828,9818.8%14.5%Jackson County, MO (w/o Kansas City)198,086213,33515,2497.7%12.2%Cook County, IL (w/o Chicago)2,321,3412,480,725159,3846.9%11.1%Milwaukee County, WI (w/o Milwaukee)331,187343,19012,0033.6%5.1%Wayne County, MI (w/o Detroit)1,083,7131,109,89226,1792.4%5.2%St. Louis County,MO993,5291,016,31522,7862.3%4.5%Cuyahoga County, OH (w/o Cleveland)906,524915,5759,0511.0%3.0%Delaware County,PA547,651550,8643,2130.6%5.0%Allegheny County, PA (w/o Pittsburgh)966,570947,103-19,467-2.0%-1.5% Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest But again, not all of ClevelandÕs Þrst suburbs experienced population loss.Several of Cuyahoga CountyÕs suburbs, including Parma, Independence andStrongsville, experienced moderate population growth. The newersuburban counties further out all continue to see population increases:Summit County grew by 27,909 to a population of 542,889 while MedinaCounty grew by 28,741 to a total of 151,095 persons. Lorain County, justwest of Cuyahoga, grew by 13,538 persons while Geauga and Lake Countiesto the east grew by 9,766 and 12,012 people respectively. See Map A1. TABLE A2: POPULATIONHANGEINUBURBSINUYAHOGA19902000POPULATION CHANGE FIRST SUBURBPOPULATIONPOPULATION1990Ð2000East Cleveland 33,09627,217-5,879-17.8%Brook Park 22,86521,218-1,647-7.2%Lakewood 59,71856,646-3,072-5.1%Shaker Heights 30,83129,405-1,426-4.6%Bedford 14,82214,214-608-4.1%Euclid 54,87552,717-2,158-3.9%GarÞeld Heights 31,73930,734-1,005-3.2% The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 35 OPULATIONHANGEINTHESuburbs with a population of 2,500 or more in 1980. Map by David Phillips and William Lucy, University of Virginia Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 36 OPULATIONHANGEINTHESuburbs with a population of 2,500 or more in 1980. Map by David Phillips and William Lucy, University of Virginia Variations in growth and decline can also be seen in other core urbancounties. In Allegheny County in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, thereare 130 separate municipalities. From 1990 to 2000, an overwhelmingamountÑ73.8 percent, or 96 total municipalitiesÑlost population. The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Conversely, Cook County outside of Chicago saw the opposite effect. Ofthe 133 municipalities there, only 30 (23 percent) lost population duringthe 1990Õs. OPULATIONHANGEINTHESuburbs with a population of 2,500 or more in 1980. Map by David Phillips and William Lucy, University of Virginia Poverty and Working Poverty1. ON THE WHOLE,FIRST SUBURBS DO NOT HAVE HIGH LEVELS OF POVERTY.In general, Þrst suburbs do not have high levels of poverty, as deÞned by thefederal government. In 1999, the poverty rate in suburbs was 8.3 percentcompared to 16.4 percent for central cities and 14.3 percent for placesoutside of metropolitan areas. As Table A5 demonstrates, however, a fewÞrst suburban jurisdictions have excessively high poverty rates. Like centralcities, these places face multiple challenges associated with povertyÑparticularly concentrated poverty. Although these Þrst suburban communities are facing tremendous chal-lenges because of the high poverty rates, they appear to be more of anexception than the rule. However, the concentration of that poverty is deÞnitely a concern. Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 38 TABLEA5: POVERTYVSOPULATIONHANGEIN1995 ESTIMATEDPOPULATION CHANGEPOVERTY RATE (URBAN COUNTY2000 POPULATION1980 POPULATION1980Ð2000 (PERCENT)(PERCENT)Highland Park, MI (Wayne)16,74627,909-40.045.9Chester, PA (Delaware)36,85445,794-19.531.8East Cleveland, OH (Cuyahoga)27,21736,957-35.830.4Harvey, IL (Cook)30,00035,810-16.226.9Inkster, MI (Wayne)30,11535,190-14.424.8McKeesport, PA (Allegheny)24,04031,012-22.524.3Chicago Heights, IL (Cook)32,77637,026-11.521.1Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ÒState of the Cities 1999Ó and U.S. Census Bureau. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 2. SOME FIRST SUBURBS HAVE CONCENTRATIONS OF THE WORKING POOR.Poverty is not the only measure of distress. The extent of public schoolchildren receiving free- and reduced-cost meals in a community may be abetter measure of distress because it captures the degree to which familiesare earning incomes that are above the poverty level but still too low tomake ends meet (the Òworking poorÓ). Students who qualify for federallunch subsidies come from homes where the familyÕs income is not morethan 185 percent of the poverty level, which amounts to approximately$30,000 for a family of four. Thus, understanding the percent of studentsreceiving federal lunch subsidies also gives us a picture of the extent ofworking poverty in a neighborhood because school populations, more orless, mirror the populations of the neighborhoods in which the schools In general, Þrst suburbs are now home to increasing numbers of low-incomestudents and working poor families. According to Myron OrÞeld, duringthe 1990s, 90 percent of MinneapolisÕ Þrst suburbs have been gaining poorchildren at a faster rate than the city of Minneapolis itself. Nearly onequarter of all children in these suburban school systems now receive freeand reduced cost school lunches. Johnson County, a Þrst suburban area inthe Kansas City region with the highest median household income in thestate, has also seen its percentage of low-income students rise. In 2000, onein ten children qualiÞed for free and reduced cost lunches, up from one intwelve in 1990. A closer look at the St. Louis region also shows the high concentrations ofsuburban students from working poor families. In 1998, 32.6 percent of theSt. Louis regionÕs students were eligible for reduced cost lunches. Table A6below compares the regional percentages for other Midwestern regions. TABLE A6: PERCENTOFLIGIBLEFORREEAND EALSIN% OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REGIONFREE & REDUCED COST LUNCHESYEARPittsburgh28.81998Cincinnati30.01997St. Louis32.61998Detroit39.21996Milwaukee41.01996Source: Metropolitan Area Research Corporation (various reports. See http://www.metroresearch.org.) Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest In the St. Louis region, the City of St. Louis had the highest percent ofeligible students at 82.9 percent. However, 12 out of the 35 schools withbetween 73.1 percent and 96.9 percent of their students eligible for freeand reduced cost meals were located in the suburbs. Suburban jurisdictions abutting the city of St. Louis or located just outsidethe city boundaries have higher percentages of students eligible than thosejurisdictions located farther from the city. Close-in jurisdictions northwestof the city generally have the highest free and reduced cost lunch eligibilitypercentages in the region outside of the city of St. Louis. Table A7 and themap (facing page) illustrate this point. TABLE A7: PERCENTOFLIGIBLEFORREEANDEALSIN UBURBSIN% OF ELEMENTARY STUDENTSSUBURBAN DISTANCE DIRECTION 2000SCHOOL ELIGIBLE FOR FREE & JURISDICTIONFROM CBDFROM CBDPOPULATIONDISTRICTREDUCED COST MEALSCountry Club HillsNW1,381Jennings70.9%NormandyW5,153Normandy 65.9%WellstonW2,460Wellston 65.9%RiverviewN3,146Riverview-Garden60.6%BellefontaineN11,271Riverview-Garden60.6%JenningsNW15,469Jennings60.6%Ball Win mi;&#xles-;㡈&#x.300;5 milesSW31,283Rockwood/Parkway21.8%Des Peres mi;&#xles-;㡈&#x.300;5 milesSW8,592Parkway/Kirkwood21.5%Kirkwood mi;&#xles-;㡈&#x.300;5 milesSW27,324Kirkwood21.5%Maryland Heights mi;&#xles-;㡈&#x.300;5 milesW25,756Parkway/Pattonville14.6%Creve Coeur mi;&#xles-;㡈&#x.300;5 milesW16,500Parkway/Ladue14.6%Source: OrÞeld, ÒSt. Louis Metropolitics.Ó The municipal budgets of many Þrstsuburbs are quite strained, given the challenges they face. The maps below,produced by the Metropolitan AreaResearch Corporation, illustrates thisburden in Þrst suburbs in the MilwaukeeMap A4 shows the percentage change intax capacity per household by municipalityfrom 1993 to 1996 around Milwaukee.While the municipalities in blue and darktheir tax capacity through a combinationof property and sales taxes, the center cityand surrounding Þrst suburbs are experi-encing stagnation or outright decline. Map A5 focuses on the total Þscal capacityWhile many Þrst suburbs clearly have Þscalcapacities at or above the regional average,many more are well belowÑparticularly adense cluster just outside the center city ineastern Delaware County. These are placesthat are not raising enough revenue toaddress their myriad of challenges.The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 41 The housing stock in many Þrst suburban counties is non-competitive.That is, it is generally much smaller, in need of more repair, and containsless amenities than newer homes. In addition, the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) have released guidelines pointing out thatchildren under 6 years of age are at increased risk of lead-based painthazards in houses built before 1950. As Table A8 illustrates, these homesare disproportionately located in Þrst suburbs and other core communities. TABLE A8:TOTALANDERCENTOFUILTEFORE OUNTIESBY FIRST SUBURBAN COUNTYNUMBERPERCENTCook County, IL (w/o Chicago)201,44914.8Allegheny County, PA (w/o Pittsburgh)167,53936.0Cuyahoga County, OH (w/o Cleveland)120,02326.7Wayne County, MI (w/o Detroit)116,37620.2Delaware County, PA96,13845.6St. Louis County, MO83,72120.8Milwaukee County, WI (w/o Milwaukee)47,94518.3Hennepin County, MN (w/o Minneapolis) 33,2349.9Franklin County, OH (w/o Columbus)21,5216.5Jackson County, MO (w/o Kansas City)13,6606.7 Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 42 MAP A5: Philadelphia Region (Center Area with First Suburbs) Total Fiscal Capacity per Household by Municipality, 1998 The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 43 MAP A6: Milwaukee Region: Percentage Change in Tax Capacity per Household by Municipality, 1993Ð1998 -16.1to 5.4%(7)7.0to17.8%(29)18.7to23.8%(14)24.4to27.3%(16)28.4to36.2%(25)38.9to62.0%(17)FOND DU LACSHEBOYGAN River Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest Allen, Katherine and Maria Kirby.2000. ÒUnÞnished Business: WhyCities Matter to Welfare Reform.ÓBrookings Institution Center onWashington, DC.Beach David. 2000. ÒEngaged at Last:Groping Towards Regionalism inNortheast Ohio.Ó Planning.Chicago, IL: January 1.Bernstein, Scott. 2000. ÒUsing theHidden Assets of AmericaÕsCommunities and Regions to Ensurefor Neighborhood Technology:Chicago, IL.Berube, Alan and Benjamin Forman.2001. ÒA Local Ladder for theWorking Poor: The Impact of theEarned Income Tax Credit in U.S.Metropolitan Areas.Ó BrookingsInstitution Center on Urban Washington, DC.Bier, Thomas, et al. 1997. ÒTax BaseDisparity: Development of GreaterClevelandÕs Sapphire Necklace.ÓCleveland State University UrbanCleveland, OH.Bier, Thomas. 2001. ÒMoving Up,Dynamics and Public Policy.ÓBrookings Institution Center onWashington, DC.Center on Budget and PolicyPriorities. 2001. ÒThe Vast Majorityof Low-Income Uninsured Parents arePart of Working Families: A FactSheet.Ó Washington, DC.Dearborn, Philip M. and StephanieRichardson. 1999. ÒHome BuyerCredit Widely Used.Ó GreaterWashington Research Center:Washington, DC.Delaware Valley Regional PlaningCommission. 1998. ÒThe Future ofFirst Generation Suburbs in theDelaware Valley Region.ÓPhiladelphia, PA.Delaware Valley Regional PlaningCommission. 1999. ÒNewValley.Ó Philadelphia, PA.Downs, Anthony. 1997. ÒTheChallenge of Our Declining BigCities.Ó Housing Policy Debate. Vol. 8, Issue 2.Fulton, William et al. 2001. ÒWhoSprawls Most? How Growth PatternsDiffer Across the U.S.Ó BrookingsInstitution Center on Urban Washington, DC.Hennepin County Office of Planningand Development. 2001. ÒHennepinhttp://www.co.hennepin.mn.us.Hudnut III, William H. 1998. ÒCitieson the Rebound: A Vision for UrbanWashington, DC.Illinois Economic and FiscalCommission. 2001 ÒProperty Taxes inIllinois January 2001 Update.ÓSpringÞeld, IL.Johnson, Nicholas. 2001. ÒA HandUp: How State Earned Income TaxCredits Help Working FamiliesEscape Poverty in 2001.Ó Center onBudget and Policy Priorities:Washington, DC.Katz, Bruce. 1998. ÒReviving Cities:Kelly, Frank and Jeff Wuensch. 2000.ÒAssessment Reform in Indiana: OneStep Forward and Two Steps Back.ÓLincoln Institute of LandPolicy. Cambridge, MA: November.Lambrew, Jeanne. 2001. ÒHealthInsurance: A Family Affair. ANational ProÞle and State-by-StateAnalysis of Uninsured Parents andCommonwealth Fund: New York, NY.Langdon, Philip. 1997. ÒA BetterPlace to Live: Reshaping theAmerican Suburb.Ó University ofMassachusetts Press: Amherst.LeRoy, Greg, Sara Hinkley and KatieTallman. 2000. ÒAnother Way SprawlHappens: Economic DevelopmentSubsidies in a Twin Cities Suburb.ÓGood Jobs First. Washington, DC:January. The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, andMichael Lahr. 1998. ÒTheContributions of HistoricPreservation to Housing andEconomic Development.Ó Fannie MaeVolume 9, Issue 3.Lucy, William H., David L. Phillips.2000. ÒConfronting SuburbanDecline: Strategic Planning forMetropolitan Renewal.Ó Island Press:Washington, DC. Lucy, William H., David L. Phillips.2001. ÒSuburbs and the Census:Patterns of Growth and Decline.ÓBrookings Institution Center onWashington DC.ÒHousing Task Force 2002 HousingAction Agenda.Ó Chicago, IL.Metropolitan Philadelphia PolicyCenter. 2001. ÒFlight (or) Fight:Metropolitan Philadelphia and itsFuture.Ó Philadelphia, PA.National Association of LocalGovernment EnvironmentalProfessionals. 1999. ÒProÞles ofBusiness Leadership on SmartGrowth.Ó Washington, DC.Nivola, Pietro S. 1999 ÒLaws of thePress: Washington, DC.OrÞeld, Myron. 1998. ÒMetropolitics:A Regional Agenda for Communityand Stability.Ó Brookings InstitutionPress: Washington, DC. ; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy:Cambridge, MA.OrÞeld, Myron. 1998. ÒChicagoMetropolitics: A Regional Agenda forMembers of the U.S. Congress.ÓBrookings Institution, Center onWashington, DC. OrÞeld, Myron. 1999. ÒSt. LouisMetropolitics: A Regional Agenda forCommunity and Stability.ÓCorporation: Minneapolis, MN.OrÞeld, Myron. 2001. ÒAmericanMetropolitics: Social Separation andWashington, DC.Pack, Janet Rothenberg, editor.Smarter Growth and Reinvestment.Chicago Metropolitan Area CaseStudy. Brookings Institution Press:Washington, DC.Post, Charlie. 1998. ÒSingle-FamilyHome Sales and Appreciation:Cuyahoga County 1997,Ó ClevelandUniversity Program: Cleveland, OH..ÒGreyÞeld Regional Mall Study.ÓFrancisco, CA.Reddy, Sirisha. 2000. ÒEffects ofSocial Environmental Factors OnChild Health Insurance.Ó ResearchPaper 2022. West Virginia University:Morgantown, WV.Simmons, Patrick, editor. 2000ÒHousing Statistics of the United States.Ó Bernan Press:Washington, DC.Surface Transportation Policy Project.2002. ÒTen Years of Progress: BuildingTransportation.Ó Washington, DC.U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development. 1999. ÒThe State of the Cities 1999.ÓWashington, DC.U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development. 2000. ÒTheState of the Cities 2000: MegaforcesShaping the Future of the NationÕsCities.Ó Washington, DC.U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration,Office of Highway PolicyInformation. 2001. ÒHighway Taxes and Fees: How They AreFHWA-PL-01-029.Voith, Richard. 1993. ÒChangingCapitalization of CBD-OrientedTransportation Systems.Ó Journal ofUrban Economics, Vol. 33: 361Ð376.Walker, Christopher J. and MarkWeinheimer. 1998. ÒCommunityDevelopment in the 1990s.Ó TheUrban Institute. Washington, DC.Wood, David et al. 2000. ÒMilwaukeeMetropatterns: Sprawl and SocialSeparation in Metro Milwaukee.ÓCenter on Wisconsin Strategy:Madison, WI. Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest 1With over 60 percent of the nationÕspopulation, the suburbs dominate thesocial, physical, economic and politicallandscape of the U.S. Suburbs are alsooutstripping their cities in terms of jobgrowth. In the late 1990s, suburbs in thestate of Ohio outpaced central businessdistricts in job growth by nearly 300 to 1.2Philip Langdon, A Better Place to Live:Massachusetts: University of3Scott Bernstein, ÒUsing the HiddenAssets of AmericaÕs Communities andRegions to Ensure SustainableCommunities,Ó Center for NeighborhoodTechnology, Chicago, IL: 2000.4National Association of LocalProfessionals ÒProÞles of BusinessLeadership on Smart Growth,ÓWashington, DC: 1999 (16).5Thomas Bier, ÒMoving Up, FilteringDown: Metropolitan Dynamics andPublic Policy,Ó Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and MetropolitanPolicy, Washington, DC: September 2001.6Southeast Michigan Council ofGovernments, ÒInvesting in SoutheastMichiganÕs Quality of Life: SewerInfrastructure Needs,Ó Detroit, MI: April2001. (Dollar Þgures are adjusted for7Jesse Tinsley, ÒSouth Euclid: ConsideringTax, Fee Hikes,Ó The Plain Dealer, May22, 2000 (2b).8PricewaterhouseCooper, ÒGreyÞeldRegional Mall Study,Ó Congress for theNew Urbanism, San Francisco, CA:January 2001.9Myron OrÞeld, ÒChicago Metropolitics:A Regional Agenda for Members of theU.S. Congress,Ó Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and MetropolitanPolicy, Washington, DC: 1998.10David Wood, Myron OrÞeld and JoelRodgers, ÒMilwaukee Metropatterns:Sprawl and Social Separation in MetroMilwaukee,Ó Center on WisconsinStrategy, Madison, WI: August 2000.11For example, every local governmentdoes not necessarily provide the samepackage of services (particularly sewer12In both places, median price for singlefamily home sales in 1997 was about 57percent greater than the median for thecounty. See Charlie Post, ÒSingle-FamilyHome Sales and Appreciation: CuyahogaUniversity Program, Cleveland, OH: July 1998.13Patrick Simmons, editor, Statistics of the United States,Washington,DC: Bernan Press, 2000 (83).14Langdon, 148.15Bier, 2001.16This is a particular problem for slow-growing metropolitan areas such asPhiladelphia, St. Louis, Detroit,Milwaukee and Pittsburgh which alleither grew very slowly or not at all interms of population in the 1990s, butcontinued to develop land on the fringe.See William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, MaiNguyan and Alicia Harrison, ÒWhoDiffer Across the U.S.,Ó BrookingsMetropolitan Policy, Washington, DC:July 2001.17Thomas Bier, Charlie Post and WinifredWeizer ÒTax Base Disparity:Development of Greater ClevelandÕsSapphire Necklace,Ó Cleveland StateUniversity Program, Cleveland, OH:18Hennepin County Office of Planning andForesight Ð 2001,Ó Minneapolis, MN:19Illinois Economic and FiscalCommission,Ó Property Taxes in Illinois:January 2001 Update,Ó SpringÞeld, IL:January 2001.20Katherine Allen and Maria Kirby,ÒUnÞnished Business: Why Cities Matterto Welfare Reform,Ó BrookingsMetropolitan Policy, Washington, DC:July 2000.21The EITC is a refundable credit availableto families who work but generally earnless than 200 percent of the federalpoverty level. See Alan Berube andBenjamin Forman, ÒA Local Ladder forthe Working Poor: The Impact of theEarned Income Tax Credit in U.S.Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC:September 2001.22Excluding census-designated 23Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-ZyberkSuburban Nation: The Riseand Fall of the American Dream, York, NY: North Point Press, 2000 (8).24U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanPerformance Plan,Ó Washington, DC:May 2001. This program also experi-enced some administrative problems thatlikely contributed to this decline. See:ÒProblems Persist with HUDÕs 203(k)Home Rehabilitation Mortgage InsuranceProgram,Ó GAO-01-1124T, Washington,DC: September 2001.25Section 203(b) is HUDÕs largest singlefamily loan program. It is used to Þnancenew housing and reÞnance debt onexisting housing. The Brookings InstitutionCenter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy 26Data Sources for Section 203(k), 203(b)and 223(e) loan volume comes from theCatalog of Federal Domestic Assistance(CFDA), http://www.cfda.gov. Title 1data is from CFDA and HUD:http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/title-i.cfm.27Christopher J. Walker and MarkWeinheimer, ÒCommunity Developmentin the 1990s,Ó The Urban Institute,Washington, DC: September 1998 (102).28Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,ÒThe Vast Majority of Low-IncomeUninsured Parents are Part of Working Families: A Fact Sheet,ÓWashington, D.C.: July 2001.29SpeciÞcally, the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act of 1991and its progeny, the TransportationEquity Act for the 21st Century.30Surface Transportation Policy Project,ÒTen Years of Progress: Building BetterCommunities Through Transportation,ÓWashington, DC: January 2002.31Pietro S. Nivola, Laws of the Landscape,Washington, DC: Brookings InstitutionPress, 1999 (24Ð26).32From the forthcoming BrookingsSmarter Growth and Reinvestment,Chicago Metropolitan Area Case Study,Janet Rothenberg Pack, editor.33Although many MPOs existed prior tothe Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and itssuccessor, the Transportation Equity Actfor the 21st Century (TEA-21), theselandmark federal transportation lawsgreatly strengthened their role. Amongother things, many MPOs in the 1990sbegan to emphasize technical assistanceand special studies for their local 34U.S. Census Bureau, ÒFederal, State, and Local Governments 1999 PublicFinance Data, Table 5,Óhttp://www.census.gov/govs/www/35Sterling Levy, ÒJennings DistrictSuperintendent Reviews Budget ForComing Year,Ó St. Louis Post-Dispatch,36Gretchen McKay, ÒHalf of North SchoolDistricts Raise Property Tax Rates,ÓPittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12 July 2000 (N12).37ÒSuburban Schools Feel Left Out:Districts Neither Poor Nor Affluent,ÓCincinnati Enquirer, 23 April 2000 (B1).38Sirisha Reddy, ÒEffects of SocialEnvironmental Factors On Child HealthInsurance,Ó Research Paper 2022, WestVirginia University, Morgantown, WV:September 2000.39Jeanne Lambrew, ÒHealth Insurance: AFamily Affair. A National ProÞle andState-by-State Analysis of UninsuredParents and Their Children,Ó TheCommonwealth Fund, New York, NY:40Berube and Forman, 2001.41Nicholas Johnson, ÒA Hand Up: HowState Earned Income Tax Credits HelpWorking Families Escape Poverty in2001,Ó Center on Budget and PolicyPriorities, Washington, DC: 42U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration, Officeof Highway Policy Information,ÒHighway Taxes and Fees: How TheyAre Collected and DistributedÑ2001,ÓFHWA-PL-01-029, Washington, DC:43Metropolitan Philadelphia Policy Center,ÒFlight (or) Fight: MetropolitanPhiladelphia, PA: September 2001.44See: Greg LeRoy, Sara Hinkley and KatieTallman, ÒAnother Way Sprawl Happens:Economic Development Subsidies in aTwin Cities Suburb,Ó Good Jobs First,Washington, DC: January 2000.45Counties are sometimes neglected unitsof government that have the potential toassist Þrst suburbsÑparticularly in one-state metropolitan areasÑby acting assubmetropolitan regional entities. In thecontext of the county, the central cityand Þrst suburbs could potentially pursue46David Beach, ÒEngaged at Last: GropingTowards Regionalism in NortheastAmerican PlanningAssociation, Chicago, IL: January 1,2000, No. 1, Vol. 66 (22).47James Rokakis, Cuyahoga CountyTreasurer, ÒOne Tool in Revitalization ofFirst Ring SuburbsÑCuyahoga CountyÕsHome Enhancement Loan Program(HELP),Ó Proceedings from the 2000American Planning Association AnnualMeeting, New Orleans, LA: March 2000.48i.e., Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin49The cities of St. Louis and Philadelphiaare their own county-level designationsand did not need to be extracted.50Myron OrÞeld, ÒSt. Louis Metropolitics:A Regional Agenda for Community andStability,Ó Metropolitan Area ResearchCorporation: Minneapolis, MN: Valuing AmericaÕs First SuburbsA Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest Joseph Adams, Mayor, University City, MODaniel Bartholomay, Program Officer, The McKnight FoundationThomas Barwin, City Manager, Ferndale, MIDavid Beach, Director, EcoCity ClevelandJeanette Bell, Mayor, West Allis, WIMary E. Bell, Senior Regional Planner, Robert Puentes Senior Research Manager,Urban and Metropolitan PolicyJacquelynn Puriefoy-Brinkley, President, Yeadon Borough Council, PAJudith Rawson, Mayor, Shaker Heights, OHJoseph Ray, Council Member, UpperArlington, OH and Chair, Central OhioFirst Suburbs Consortium Rebecca R. Riley, The John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur FoundationBunny Rogers, Council Member,Phoenixville, PAJames Rokakis, Cuyahoga County Treasurer,Cuyahoga County, OHDavid Rusk, Urban Policy ConsultantBarry J. Seymour, Assistant ExecutiveValley Regional Planning CommissionEllen Shubart, Manager of the Campaign forSensible Growth, Metropolitan PlanningKurt Sommer, Research Analyst, Urban and Metropolitan PolicyJoseph D. Strauss, Executive Vice President, Joseph Szabo, Mayor, Riverdale, IL (formerly)Jay Talbot, Sr. Program Officer, Elwyn Tinklenberg Commissioner,Minnesota Department of Transportation(former Mayor of Blaine, MN)William H. Lucy, Professor and Associate Dean, School of Architecture,University of Virginia William H. Hudnut, III, Senior Resident Fellow, (former Mayor of Indianapolis, IN)Paul Ziehler, City Administrative Officer,West Allis, WIBrookings would especially like to recognizethe following Þrst suburban leaders andexperts who provided thoughtful review Tom Bier, Karen Black, Jim BrasÞeld, Bill Hudnut, Ed Huck, Robert Jaquay, Bill Lucy, Ken Montlack, Paul Oyaski andAnn Woodward.Brookings would also like to thank Sese-Paul Design for design of this publication.Finally, Brookings would like to thankseveral organizations and individuals whocontributed photographs to this report:Sherry J. Buk of Process Innovators Inc. inAssociation, Blair Forlaw of the East-WestGateway Coordinating Council, TerrySchwartz of Kent State University, and Dr. Jon Bell of Presbyterian College, The views expressed in this report are notnecessarily those of the trustees, officers, orstaff members of the Brookings Institution. 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-2188Tel: 202-797-6000 Fax: 202-797-6004www.brookings.eduFax/direct: 202-797-2965www.brookings.edu/urban