Recap: Exploring President Biden’s Urban Agenda | Co-Hosted by SPUR, the MPC, and the RPA

Calvin Gladney, President and CEO of Smart Growth America moderated the panel, which included: MarySue Barrett (Metropolitan Planning Council), Alicia John-Baptiste (SPUR), and Tom Wright (Regional Plan Association).

Prompt: What’s one climate change issue happening in your region that you want the federal administration to address? How can we address it differently than the past?

Alicia: California is doing it’s part and attempting to lead on climate change. However, bigger interventions are necessary to mitigate the impacts and adapt. I worry about sea level rise and flooding, and their effects on our most vulnerable communities and essential infrastructure. At SPUR, we put together a strategy for adapting to sea level rise throughout the Bay Area, using nature based solutions. For us to be effective, we need to introduce these adaptations in the next ten years or we will lose the opportunity to make a difference. There’s a lot of potential for the region to partner with the federal government. I hope funding on transportation includes adaptation funding for transitioning fleets and buildings to EV - all that is necessary if we are going to be effective. With respect to sea level ride, even a $50M federal investment would jumpstart our efforts. I am optimistic about the integrated, cooperative way that the administration is starting to tackle this.

Prompt: How do you think about handling natural disasters in the future, such as Hurricane Sandy?

Tom: In terms of New York — it starts with our study of the harbor and learning how to protect it from future storms — this study will be restarted and improved. In addition to storms, we are concerned about sea level rise. As a part of our regional plan we identified areas with the potential for sea level rise, where folks are at risk. We found in Southeast Queens, there is an enormous population of people who are vulnerable. We are expecting support from the federal government to tackle these issues.

On the renewable side of things, in the tristate region, we see a huge potential in wind. NY and NJ have a real opportunity. We now have a partner on this in the federal government, so we are hoping to see things open up. We have aggressive targets and timetables for electrification and renewables.

Prompt: How are you tackling the inequitable distribution of resources [to combat climate change] and the racial equity implications of climate change?

MarySue: There were more than 500 environmental regulations rolled back during the Trump years. We have to play catch up. We need a federal government that is stable and encouraging. We have high expectations from the Biden Administration. Every community is struggling with EV infrastructure — that could be a job generator. Climate should not be positioned as a costly problem, but as an opportunity. We need to implement a cross-functional strategy, with race and equity being a big part of the equation. Climate is starting to be considered a racial justice issue - and it should be.

Prompt: Housing is always a challenge. What is the appropriate role for the federal government to play? How can it be most supportive of local and regional efforts?

Alicia: There is a desperate need to create affordable housing. I sometimes feel the conversations we have in the Bay Area around housing are sibling squabbles. The concept that most people embrace is that all people should have safe and stable housing. But at the same time, many people like their neighborhoods the way they are. We’ve gotten stuck in this conversation.

There have been efforts to allow for more density in particular locations — especially near transit and in commercial corridors. However we haven’t been able to unlock this locally or at the state level, so this is where the federal government needs to come in. Ideally, they would provide funding conditioned on the zoning and the actual development of the housing. We need $3.5B per year to support affordable housing across our nine counties. Getting direct assistance from the federal government would allow for land banking, preserving naturally occurring affordable housing, and could jumpstart construction for affordable housing. The last piece is that we need to expand the pool of housing that is actually affordable on the market. That means introducing new tax and financing mechanisms for the ‘missing middle.’

Prompt: Is there anything the federal government shouldn’t do?

Alicia: The disinvestment in housing at the federal level over a generation has been harmful and the rolling back of AFFH was harmful. I am relieved to see how consistently this administration is talking about systemic racism. One of the things coming up in Biden’s agenda is an expansion of Section 8. However, if we don’t actually have the homes for people who use those vouchers to live in, it just adds to the competitive nature to seek out that housing, which could mean worse quality housing.

MarySue: In Chicago, we have past sins and patterns that are hardwired in place. We need to address the issues that exist from redlining in the past. We have done a lot of work with our partners in terms of housing for the formerly incarcerated / returning citizens, but it is just the start.

If you think back on the great recession — the recovery was slow because we were slow to respond with the right tools. Tons of homeowners went into foreclosure, there were absentee investors, and it led to the destabilization of communities. We have proven ourselves incapable of fixing housing just with local zoning. We need more than an emergency moratorium on rent evictions. We need more than delays on mortgage protections. We need pathways for people to reclaim their ownership and restore their credit. Land banks could be one tactic and one part of the solution, as well as tax incentives for the ‘missing middle.’ If the federal government can provide the backbone, the models, and the data that would really help. We are clear on what we need, but we can’t do it on our own. We need a nudge in the right direction.

Prompt: Will NYC make a come back?

Tom: NYC is not a complete ghost town. We recently wrote a report on New York’s next comeback to dispel some of the myths about the city emptying. COVID hit us hard, and it’s certainly been horrible and has exacerbated the inequity in our society. But NYC is not dead. We’ll need to reinvent it post-COVID — there will be changes in the way we work, in travel patterns, and more. But it’s not dead. What’s really happening now is a rebalancing. It may be that the Newarks and Bridgeports gain from some of this. We’ll see.

Alicia: It is a rebalancing. In this moment, there was a pause for a lot of people. A need to go remote. It raised the question: why do I live where I live? Is this where I want to be?

We have seen people, individuals, and companies moving out. When you ask new start-ups where they are most likely to locate, one of the top contenders is ‘in the cloud.’ What will it mean for us to be re-adjusting to a semi-virtual workforce? It could be an adjustment in the short-term, but it may be good for national cohesion to have greater diversity in where people are living and working across different types of industries.

Prompt: How would you change the public narrative about public transit? And how would you translate that into federal programs or legislation?

Tom: People understand it’s important; it’s the life blood of the region. The only way we hit our climate goals is by having a robust transit system. We rely on transit riders to pay for the costs of operating the system. People generally understand this.

We are particularly excited about congestion pricing. This can potentially raise $1B for transit. This is a policy and direction that the nation needs to go in. To be clear — we can structure congestion pricing without exacerbating inequities. If you look at the profile of people driving into NYC on a daily basis — aside from deliveries and e-commerce — it’s often wealthy people. If you really look at the data, the transit system is an equitable system by and large.

MarySue: We need to change the narrative and look into performance-based planning. And we may want to start by reflecting on the history of our system. We initially built train lines to wall off communities; we cited employment hubs because we didn’t want certain people to be able to get there. We have to have a conversation. Transit is integral to economic success and other major issues. We can’t be talking about transit on it’s own.The narrow mindset of a transportation engineer from the past (focused on safety, speed, statistics) needs to be balanced with equity and other considerations.

Alicia: I think a critical investment needs to. be in the operation of transit. We have the idea that a good transit system is self-funding; but it’s much more than that. It takes people where they need to go, opens economic opportunity, fosters community, and does so sustainably.

Prompt: What about buses?

Tom: The MTA started redesigning bus routes in NYC —this required getting into communities and grassroots level planning. There is an opportunity for technology to radically improve buses as well (through signal optimization, etc.). During this time, we’ve worked to reallocate street space to pedestrians, restaurants, and buses. Long term, it is going to require federal partnership, flexibility in funding state authorities, and engagement at the local level to see it through.

Prompt: How can the federal government help with homelessness in your region?

MarySue: Homelessness is in the continuum of housing issues. One way they can help is with expanding vouchers — providing assistance and pathways to housing. The other piece is job creation.

By focusing on job creation and small business wealth creation, we can create an ecosystem. I’d like to see homelessness agenda that coordinates with other intertwined issues, such as poverty, job creation, and the environment. Not just we need funding for new housing.

Alicia: Homelessness is complex. We know certain systems produce homelessness: military service, incarceration, the foster care system. Those are upstream. The other piece of it is the economic insecurity. Pre-pandemic we had 35,000 people without a place to sleep at night. Without the eviction moratorium that would have skyrocketed.

I try and think of it in short-term and long-term. For many households, the difference between staying housed and being on the street is a few hundred dollars. Relative to the cost of rehousing, it is way less expensive to keep people housed. I think the single most important thing in the short-term is providing the financial support to keep people housed.

I do think in the longer term, we need to address the inequity that exists in our schools. Certain communities pool money for their schools. In some ways we have privatized what is nominally a public service, without acknowledging it.