Not Cool Enough

Local media reported this afternoon that Michigan’s unemployment rate had leapt to 8.9 percent from 8.5 percent. It was yet another reminder that whatever state officials have done in recent years to encourage economic development it is — wait for it — not working.

While I am suggesting no link here between cities well-being and the state as a whole, the state of Michigan's Cool Cities program (designed to facilitate economic development by encouraging a "creative class" in certain cities) represents yet another program that tends to obfuscate rather than address a municipalities more fundamental shortcomings. I write on this today because Governor Granholm’s Cool Cities concept has been getting some ink lately due to a forthcoming International Creative Cities Summit in — wait for it — Detroit. The event is scheduled for Oct. 13-15.

State economic development programs for cities face the same difficulties as listed in my previous blog entry “Four Reasons Why State Industrial Policy Fails.” What’s unique about the Cool Cities program is the way it transparently makes my four-point case for the failure of such programs. Consider just one of them:

The Knowledge Problem. How exactly does government know what constitutes cool when it anoints cities like Detroit, Flint, Pontiac and "Hipsilanti" as cool cities and gives them grants or other favors? Moreover, how do they know young, hip, creative people won’t think a city is uncool once so designated by the mother of all authority figures — the state.

According to an Oct. 9, 2003 Detroit News article by Christopher Singer “Granholm envisions a cool city as having a diverse population, wide sidewalks spiced by ‘“the smell of Indonesian food,’” street vendors, clubs featuring jazz and rock, cybercafés and lofts full of artists, musicians, photographers and young entrepreneurs.”

But that’s just the Governor’s definition of cool. My definition includes quiet, safe streets with efficient, competent municipal services like police and fire. Apparently, I’m not the only one. The state itself conducted a survey on what would make things cool in Michigan cities and got 13,000 responses. A whopping 93 percent said they want safe streets; 90 percent wanted an affordable place to live and 83 percent wanted job opportunity.

The bottom line is that government really doesn’t need to play these games and should not. The idea that one level of government can revolutionize a city by attempting to induce a creative class of people to live, work, and invest in it amounts to what author Steven Malanga calls “economic snake oil.”

Parting shot: I will opine on this subject again as we approach the Creative Cities Summit Oct. 13.

Comments

[Jack McHugh]

As one rather colorful legislator put it, "I'll tell you what a cool city is - anyplace you don't get shot.

[JGillman]

Click Click Click... ..Isn't that the correct way to offer respect for a fine performance in "cool" land?

It further demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difference between substantive policy and fluff measures. A radio pundit used to use the term "style over substance" if I recall correctly. He was right then, as he was describing the "cool" crowd, and its inability to find the correct solutions to the issues of the day with window dressing.