[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–vlT1iGF0g[/youtube]
There has been much chatter around the continent — especially as the recession-depression continues — about a new deal for cities. Two intersecting items crossed my laptop yesterday, the first being this video of an Obama speech given back in August in Toledo, Ohio, where he’s given “an important book about cities” that he immediately asks “is it Jane Jacobs?” Then goes on to discuss his ideas for cities, and their relationship to the suburbs — words we rarely hear from a federal politician (in either country). It’s premature to get too excited, but there is anticipation of an unprecedented investment in public infrastructure south of the border. Here in Canada the landscape is more uncertain; our federal government’s relationship with cities is uneasy at best, but the upcoming federal budget — under the influence of those rather exciting and crazy parliamentary days back in early December — may see some new investment in infrastructure. In yesterday’s Toronto Star, former Minister of State for Infrastructure John Godfrey wrote an op-ed piece encouraging just this, and discussed the plan we may have got had Paul Martin’s government not been defeated.
Once upon a time, there was actually a federal government that took an active interest in Canada’s cities. It was led by prime minister Paul Martin, who, ironically, had been ostensibly fired as finance minister by his predecessor, Jean Chrétien, for suggesting that the cities needed a “New Deal.” True to his word, as prime minister Martin launched the federal government’s first foray into urban affairs in 25 years.
Martin used federal infrastructure investments to start a new three-way conversation with the provinces about cities. And that’s why in a time of economic turmoil, reviving the New Deal is more important than ever. It provides a framework for an immediate economic stimulus package, which meets the very real infrastructure needs of Canada’s cities and communities and does so in a co-ordinated fashion with the provinces.
Would’a and should’a and could’a-beens are no fun to think about (though casting blame on who toppled that government does feel good sometimes) — but perhaps Stephen Harper’s brinkmanship last month will result in some tidbits for Canadian cities. No doubt, comparisions between plans in the US and Canada will be ongoing.
Thanks to Manish Champsee for the video link.
6 comments
I love how, after Obama puts down Jacobs’ book, Joe Biden pops over to check out the back cover.
Back home, John Godfrey always struck me as more thoughtful and more practical than most of his Ottawa colleagues, so his role as a federal minister for urban issues was promising. But let’s not forget that in typical Paul Martin wishy-washiness, a new deal for cities morphed into the “New Deal for Canada’s Cities and Communities”. Yes, the bulk of the infrastructure funds still went to cities, but it was disappointing they didn’t have the courage to focus their investments based solely on funding need and project merit. The habit of following every reference to “cities” with “and communities” quickly became grating.
I’ve already been a bit disappointed but a few recent Obama moves (esp who will be standing on the inauguration stage with him) — that was inevitable — but I still can’t get over that the president reads. Like, really reads. Wow.
It’s a sad state of affairs when we’re excited over the fact that a president actually reads books.
No, we’re excited about the subject matter of the books he reads.
I am happy to hear that they are talking about infrastructure again as this is one of the most importat issues that dosent seem to be talked about enough
A.R. has a good point there. The books they pay attention to are certainly important, and look to be an encouraging sign in their own right in this case.