A concept on how to revitalize struggling areas of our cities

[the urban politician]

I'd like to throw out a concept, just a thought, and (of course) I'll use Chicago as an example. But for those of you who live in or near cities that are plagued by impoverished neighborhoods, I'm sure the same idea can apply.

Chicago is interesting in that much of the policy that serves its affluent, generally liberal and urban population very well (ie the central area and northsiders) is scaring businesses and middle class residents from its more struggling areas (south and west sides). Higher taxes, fees, and regulations perhaps benefit denser, more affluent neighborhoods that also require intense city services for upkeep (police, road maintenance, water, parks, mass transit).

One of the reasons companies flee to Texas and other places, and why they are seeing so much investment, is because they tend to be less regulatory, and businesses believe they are facing lower hurdles.

So my idea is this (don't laugh, it's JUST a preliminary idea): How about siphoning off a portion of the city--ie large chunks that are in the worst shape, and have hit rock-bottom, and temporarily run them as a separate city? They still fall within the same municipality, but they operate as an "independent subsidiary", so to speak.

Call it "Chicago A" for now. Chicago A has its own manager, functioning like a mayor of that city. It has a few basic departments: buildings, zoning, business licensing, etc. But these departments have much lower requirements & hurdles than do their counterparts in Chicago proper. The much more relaxed building code makes housing and business development easier (ie less stringent code, faster permitting process). Zoning changes are quicker & easier to accommodate the individual needs of the community. Business licenses are easier to obtain, and there are fewer of them. Maybe the city could just drastically lower, or even eliminate, permit and license fees altogether! Another idea is a very low property tax, or even a property tax freeze, in this district. I'm sure we could go on and on, but you guys get the drift.

Essentially, it's like creating a low-tax, low-regulation "city within a city" (ie a bit of 'Houston in Chicago') in order to promote growth and development. Some basic big-city services will still remain, ie the CTA continues to serve Chicago A like it serves the rest of Chicago, and the police and fire departments continue to serve these areas like they always have. Finally, Chicago A being a temporary entity, its existence is pre-ordained to expire within a set amount of time (10 years perhaps?) and automatically it dissolves and becomes a seamless part of Chicago proper once again. This could be done either immediately or through gradual changes over a few years.

Any thoughts?

[Nowhereman1280]

I think more optimal results could simply be obtained by systematically targeting neighborhoods with "special zoning districts" or something that temporarily relax zoning and code laws in those areas. For example, the city could easily declare the entire south-side an "emergency special zone" or something and allow much higher densities and reduce the code requirements on rennovations.

The problem is that the codes are how they are because the unions won't allow them to be changed for fear of reducing their business. So while it is great to fantasize, the real solution is to effect change in the political system so that such modifications can become politically realistic.

[mhays]

The downtrodden places tend to cost more in services than they collect in taxes. So you'd be cutting them off from their lifelines. Lowering taxes would be even worse in that respect -- less money to combat crime, less street maintenance, etc.

The turnover would require years of process and uncertainty at best. This would scare off business rather than attract it, until all the new regs were figured out. A lot might need to be tested in court, which would stretch the uncertainties out additional years.

Public process is generally too time-consuming and can be too restrictive, but it also protects existing uses as well as the general public good. Reducing it could hurt more than help. The result would be just what you get in places that regulate too little -- drive-throughs, blank street walls, etc. Safety and environmental regs would remain the same, assuming that these are generally not set by the City.

Regarding public facilities (streets, buildings, etc.), the City would still be the owner presumably, and would therefore have to think as a long-term owner.

This is far too complex to ever happen, and wouldn't help overall if it did. But a smaller program of isolated changes has been known to help somewhat.