Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

A Metropolitan Strategy for America’s Future

U.S. Conference of Mayors

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Miami, Florida

This is something of a homecoming for me. Because while I stand here today as a candidate for President of the United States, I will never forget that the most important experience in my life came when I was doing what you do each day – working at the local level to bring about change in our communities.

As some of you may know, after college, I went to work with a group of churches as a community organizer in Chicago – so I could help lift up neighborhoods that were struggling after the local steel plants closed. And it taught me a fundamental truth that I carry with me to this day – that in this country, change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up.

The often-contested, never-beaten State Rep. Rosita Youngblood may be a little more vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2010. Heard in the Hall reports that Youngblood and Carol Campbell are quits, following a dispute over $10K in cash Campbell routed to Youngblood.

The money was intended to pay Youngblood's poll workers on election day. Campbell and her ally Joyce Eubanks promised these workers $100; Youngblood paid them each $75. What's more, Youngblood was in a room of workers when Eubanks promised them $100, but did nothing to correct or contradict her.

“I was there to hear it, but if you have a roomful of people, it would be a riot if you want to contradict what was stated,” Youngblood said. That left some workers disappointed when they came to collect their checks election night...

“I just hope she enjoys what we did for her while it lasts,” Campbell said. “Because two years comes around mighty fast.”

Jannie Blackwell has introduced a bill to remove the Street-era $35 application fee for civil service jobs. I don't quite understand why it requires a charter change and November referendum -- did voters agree to add the fee in 2004? (I don't remember voting on it.)

Anyways, it makes sense to me. It doesn't cost the city much (maybe $1 million?) and it ultimately comes from people who are unemployed or who want to leave the private sector to work for the city. Any thoughts?

The LA Times has a story about the Obama campaign's refusal to hand out street money to Philadelphia ward leaders to work the upcoming primary:

"We've heard directly from the Obama organizer who organizes our ward, and he told us it's an entirely volunteer organization and that I should not expect to see anything from the Obama campaign other than ads on TV and the support that volunteers are giving us," said Greg Paulmier, a ward leader in the northwest part of the city.

Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaign would say publicly whether it would comply with Philadelphia's street money customs. But an Obama aide said Thursday that it had never been the campaign's practice to make such payments. Rather, the campaign's focus is to recruit new people drawn to Obama's message, the aide said.

The article also includes quotes from Carol Campbell, Dwight Evans, and ward leaders Peter Wilson and Garry Williams. It also includes this great anecdote about Bob Brady:

Brady was sitting in his campaign office with two of his political lieutenants. He reached into a desk drawer at one point and pulled out a $50 bill -- street money. Brady tore it in two and gave each man a half. Then the men made a bet: Whoever pulled in the most Democratic votes that day from his precincts would get both halves.

Local color aside, this is a hard issue. On the one hand, it's problematic that political loyalties seem to be for sale to whichever campaign can pony up the cash (several people say that if ward leaders don't get money from Obama, they'll take it from Clinton). On the other hand, if Obama's going to cut into Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania, he's going to need a strong showing in Philadelphia. Obama's campaign is rich as Croesus, and coming from Chicago, he knows how this process works.

It's also unclear exactly what Obama gets by standing on principle. Maybe the Clinton campaign could try to play Philadelphia off against the rest of the state if they could claim that Obama had "bought" city support. But in a big campaign like this, obscure issues like street money only have so much traction. Another alternative is that the combination of volunteers, an alternative GOTV operation, and the support of political leaders who have already endorsed Obama will be able to get the deed done.

It's possible that intentionally or not, the Obama campaign is testing a theory: is it possible to win in Philadelphia with a combination of big ad buys and all-volunteer support?

One thing is clear: the fact that the Obama campaign has chosen to forego the traditional methods of getting out the vote in the city creates both a need and an opportunity. The need is for supporters of the Obama campaign to get out and volunteer. The opportunity is for alternative organizations who support Obama, including progressive ones, to show what they can do on the national stage.

I just got an email from the Barack Obama campaign which may be of interest to the YPP community. Obama's introducing a program to give campaign volunteers training in community and field organizing. It's called the Obama Organizing Fellowship, which sounds like it would be paid (it isn't) and competitive (which it is). This sounds particularly good for college students, recent grads, and other younger people looking to get some hands-on experience w/ community and political organizing.

I got my chance on the South Side of Chicago, as a community organizer, and it was the transformative experience of my career.

It allowed me to put my values to work and to see that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, when ordinary people come together around a common purpose.

The experience changed the course of my life -- and I want to share that kind of opportunity with you.

That's why we're introducing a program that's going to train a new generation of leaders -- not only to help us win this election, but to help strengthen our democracy in communities across the country.

If you apply and are selected, you'll be trained in the basic organizing principles that this campaign and our movement for change are built on. You will be assigned to a community where you'll organize supporters. Assignments will begin in June, and you'll be required to work a minimum of six weeks over the summer.

This program is designed to give you real world organizing experience that will have a concrete impact on this election.

Full text (including links) after the jump.

Ben Waxman has a smart write-up today on The Next Mayor about the fate of Wireless Philadelphia. (In case you haven't been following this story, Earthlink built the city what was to be a citywide municipal wireless network. They bailed out of the municipal wi-fi business entirely some time ago, and what we have left is a chunk of the network that needs either another company or the city itself to complete it -- and maybe even make some money from it.)

Here's my longshot idea. Could the city partner up with the surrounding counties -- Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, and Bucks, maybe even Camden and Burlington -- and regional agencies (SEPTA, PATCO, the port, and the airport) to build a regional wireless network? Then, instead of having a citywide hotspot, you'd have a giant metropolitan hotspot. Whether you'd be downtown or in Doylestown, you'd have the same wi-fi.

In case there isn't an alarm going off in your head yet, I'll save you the trouble. This would turn a big and possibly disastrous project into a bigger and even more difficult and incomplete project. After all, it's not like any of these groups can ever come together on the basic stuff. And you are right.

But stay with me in Sim City land, or at least Penn Praxis land, for a little while longer. A metropolitan wireless network actually solves a number of the problems of the original Wireless Philadelphia.

First, it vastly enlarges the potential market. Not only are other municipalities increasingly faced with the problem of needing wi-fi access in their work for local government, but many people in the cities and suburbs surrounding Philadelphia would be interested to. It taps into higher income groups (fewer subsidies) and gives you more saturation.

Second, everyone can help bear the costs of finishing the network -- not just Philadelphia.

Third, it better meets a need. We have home networks and work networks and even public hotspots at cafes or libraries. What we don't have, apart from expensive EV-DO cards and data plans, is continuous wi-fi for commuters.

Finally, it's great press. Not only do we have a great forward-thinking city, but a great forward-thinking region, with Philadelphia leading the way.

Just an idea to kick around.

There's so much rhetoric about the demographics and symbolism of the Clinton-Obama split in the Democratic electorate (young/old, black/Latino, male/female, rich/poor, vision/experience, change/restoration, etc.) that it's refreshing to read journalism that breaks down what this means, and why campaigns for candidates who don't differ sharply on much really don't seem to like each other.

This Washington Post piece on union organization in Ohio reads in part like typical on-the-campaign-trail stuff, but also notes that while most of the AFL-CIO unions have backed Clinton, Obama's won most of the the splinter group Change To Win, including the Teamsters, the hotel and service workers, and others. Change To Win broke with the AFL-CIO over political and organizational strategy, and has a greater emphasis on grassroots organization and expanding the base of union workers.

Likewise, The Nation has an excellent piece that reads the Clinton/Obama split in the light of Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign and his management to date of the DNC. Since Dean lost in 2004, it wasn't clear whether his message and his strategy was really the wave of the party's future or just a neat new way to raise some money. Likewise, Dean was criticized for devoting DNC funds to organization in all fifty states rather than focusing on a few battlegrounds to build a larger congressional majority.

Well, now Obama is riding Dean's wave, connecting with younger and affluent voters on the web, organizing precinct-by-precinct from the bottom up, and winning delegates by rallying Democrats and independents in heartland states. He's Dean with vastly more charm, more profile, and more discipline. Meanwhile, the Clinton folks are stinging at the fact that they're not only unable to beat back Obama, but may find it difficult to win the war of ideas and resources against a vindicated Dean at the DNC.

For the many YPP readers interested in planning and sustainability issues and urban development: Alex Steffen at WorldChanging has a terrific essay on city redevelopment titled "My Other Car is a Bright Green City." It's fairly long for a blog post, but well worth reading, as it summarizes a lot of the current thinking about green tech, density planning, and cities over the past couple of years. (See also David Owen's "Green Manhattan [PDF]," etc.)

A brief summary of Steffen:

1) Since most of the energy consumed and CO2 produced happens in the home, we should focus on how people live and work rather than (solely) the gas efficiency of the car they use to get there.

2) We need to act fast, not just because our lifestyles are out of control, but that the rest of the world emulates us.

3) This doesn't mean cars aren't important, just that tailpipes and MPG matters less than the enviro (and social!) costs of roads and infrastructure, commuting, etc.

4) If we want to turn this around, we have to promote and build denser housing developments and leverage existing high-density neighborhoods (i.e. cities and inner-ring suburbs.

5) We can do this faster and achieve higher energy gains than we can turn around the existing automotive fleet.

6) Goodies! Bike shares, transit-oriented development, New Urbanist neighborhoods. A green-city-geek's geekstuff.

Sugarhouse, the proposed riverfront casino on the Fishtown/Northern Liberties border, needs to build on some submerged land owned by the state. The Street administration issued them a license to build on that land, which provoked lawsuits from state lawmakers and Philadelphia City Council, who claimed that the city had no right to issue that license.

Well, Michael Nutter just either made that lawsuit moot or upped the ante by revoking the license awarded by the city.

From the Inquirer:

At a City Hall news conference, he used harsh language to criticize the city action that preceded him, saying the license was "issued in error" by the city Commerce Department and was "unnecessarily rushed."

SugarHouse will have 30 days to appeal to the city to issue the license again, but only after a more extensive review process, Nutter said. He did not say how long that process would take - "it will be reasonable' - if SugarHouse chose to appeal...

The mayor reiterated that he is not a fan of the site for the SugarHouse or the Foxwoods casinos. In the case of SugarHouse, he said, concerns about traffic, parking, congestion and more were "brushed to the side" by the Street administration in a process that he characterized as improper. "It was an abuse of a discretion," Nutter said.

There's a new city-news-maps project starting up called EveryBlock, helmed by Adrian Holovaty (formerly of ChicagoCrime.org and the Washington Post) and other smart people. The idea is to link every news story -- including newspaper articles, crime, restaurant reviews, neighborhood meetings, road closures, press releases, and inspections records, plus blogs and info from Flickr and Yelp and Craigslist -- to a map of a zip code, ward, or other geographic entity. (Here's a sample from Chicago's 3rd Ward.) In other words, you would have on a single map or feed virtually all of the news in your neighborhood.

Right now, EveryBlock is (of course) beginning with New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, but there are hopes to roll it out to other American cities as well. But my interest isn't so much about this site, and how cool and fun and smart it would be if it covered Philadelphia, but about how the internet and other technologies, and their attendant emerging cultural practices, have changed local politics, for the better or the worse. I mean, here we all are, blogging away. I can't be the only one thinking about this.

Joshua Glenn over at The Boston Globe/Brainiac has been working on a smart series on American generational categories. In the inaugural post, he takes on the question of whether Barack Obama (born in 1961) is part of the baby boom generation or the post-baby-boom generation. Arguing that the traditional twenty-year generational divisions aren't sufficiently flexible, he proposes the following categories:

1914-23: Greatest Generation
1924-33: Postmodernist Generation
1934-43: Anti-Anti-Utopian Generation
1944-53: Boomers
1954-63: OGX (Original Generation X)
1964-73: PC Generation
1974-83: Net Generation
1984-93: Millennials
1994-03: Too soon to say

The Committee of Seventy, hot off of the success of its co-sponsorship of The Next Mayor project, has turned its attention to updating the city charter, arguing (as Sylvester Johnson also recently said) that the police commissioner should have more power to appoint his subordinates and to recruit police officers who don't currently live in the city. My reaction to this was similar to Dan's:

This is a little strange. I understand they are a good government group, so getting their opinion on taking away civil service jobs and moving them to appointments makes sense. But, doesn't it seem strange that instead of being asked about whether they would support a move, they are actually proposing policing policy changes?... (I)t seems more like the Committee of Seventy is either greatly expanding its mission, or that someone asked them to issue this call for change, so as to use their goodwill in the media, etc.

On Sunday, Zack Stalberg appeared on Live at Issue. He said that with the change in office, the Committee of Seventy was likely to shift its attention away from ethics violations (the main issue during the Street Administration) and towards "good government," i.e., efficiency, the quality of city services, etc. The proposed changes to the city charter, then, would fall under how the Committee is now interpreting its mandate.

But even if it's a broadening of focus rather than a wholesale change, I find this troubling -- especially insofar as it seems part of a narrative that with Street out and Nutter in, the city's ethical problems are over and we can move on to other issues. The presumption that a change of the top office holder somehow changes both the prevailing dynamics and universal potential for corruption is woefully short-sighted. [Read on after the jump.]

Penn President Amy Gutmann recently announced the following initiative:

Today we are announcing a far reaching new financial aid initiative that will eliminate loans for financially eligible undergraduate students regardless of family income, making it possible for students from a broad range of economic backgrounds to graduate debt-free.

Penn's new program is the latest step in our efforts to widen access for students from all economic backgrounds, by expanding our no-loan program from low and lower-middle income families to include middle and upper-middle income families.

This new program will begin in September 2008, and include all eligible undergraduates, not just entering freshmen. Effective that year, students with calculated family incomes under $100,000 will receive loan-free aid packages, while families above that level will receive a 10 percent reduction in need-based loans.

The New York Times' Sewell Chan has a very good article about university expansion in New York City, and all of the benefits and pitfalls that town and gown relationships can entail in a big city trying to encourage big development.

I noticed a number of connections with our recent discussions about Penn Praxis and the role of city planning, and of course, the idea of creating a new university campus in the city of Philadelphia. Basically, universities can be tremendous engines of economic growth and cultural value, but (as with every enterprise) only if smart planning keeps their growth within a broader vision of city neighborhoods and development.

Judith Rodin, former president of Penn and now president of the Rockefeller Foundation, is quoted at length (making the article nearly as much about Philadelphia as it is about New York):

This is a post that's been a long time coming. Here is part of its history.

During the Mayoral primary campaign, YPP hosted a post by a young woman named Renata Neal. Renata grew up in Germantown, and attends West Chester University through the Core Philly Scholarship program. Her mother worked as a volunteer for Chaka Fattah's mayoral campaign, and Renata likewise voiced her support since Fattah had helped create the program.

But one of the questions that came out of that post was why a talented young Philadelphian had to leave the city of Philadelphia to get an affordable education at a public university. Philadelphia has many prestigious and wonderful colleges and universities -- but most of them are private, which makes their tuition steep, especially for first-generation college students who are unwilling to take on debt or who can't easily navigate the scholarship system. Temple, which like Penn State is a public/private commonwealth university, has undergraduate tuition twice that of West Chester. If Renata, who as a young, full-time student had been offered scholarships, had to look elsewhere -- what opportunities were there for nontraditional students, finishing their degrees part-time, or trying to return to school after a long absence?

Mark Cohen noted then that he was working with the state university system to try to bring a new four-year state university to the city of Philadelphia. I've had this in my mind ever since then. And I think it's a wonderful idea -- for college students like Renata, for students nothing like Renata, for our schools, for our neighborhoods, and for our city. What's more, it's a project that in principle all of our elected officials, from city office to Congress, can work to make happen. If you want to know more, read after the jump.