City Government 101: How do the city and the community create growth?

(Editor’s note: This is the fourth installment of a four-part series on the function of city government.)

To this point this series has dealt in the concrete abilities and limitations of municipal government. There are things that are explicitly the city’s domain and things that are not. But more than that, there are things that the city should do but may not, things they should not do but may be, and most of all, things that the city cannot and should not do alone.

No city exists in a bubble; that’s the basis of a large chunk of dystopian fiction. The city exists in the context of its own community and the ones surrounding it. The community includes the municipal government, but also the schools, churches, organizations, and private businesses that provide in their own ways for its members. A smaller community will have fewer actors, but that makes each that much more impactful. The flip side of that is that tension can be that much more damaging.

Every city is concerned with “growth”. The problem is that what “growth” even looks like will be unique to each community, much less the path to get there. Some cities have the right resources and access to attract industrial projects. Others have a geographic advantage that is conducive to residential or retail development. Ideally, we would see growth across all areas, but some may be easier to achieve than others.

No matter the short- or long-term goals, however, these remain consistent: a community needs a vision, and its key players must be bought in. Government, business, and community leaders all have a part to play. The exact direction is less important, so long as everyone is pulling towards it. 

If not enough people understand where they are going, or are willing to go there, progress will be slow. It is hard to sell outsiders on an idea only a couple locals believe in. If there are too many competing ideas, there will be confusion, and any effect will be spread thin. A city can’t be everything, and it shouldn’t be. And if any actor takes on such a role that it interferes with others, you will find yourself moving in the opposite direction. You will only lose momentum as you lose support.

That is not to say that everyone must be in full agreement. If that were the case, we’d be back to the dystopian fiction situation. But every player, the city most of all, must be communicating clearly with one another, and supporting one another wherever possible. You cannot promote a vision if your actions do not support it. I hear it all the time from people in both the public and private sector: investors are looking for places that know what they want, and where people will work together to get there. They want to see that local community leaders and business owners are investing in themselves first.

The municipal government will always be important in organizing this vision. It is their job to ensure that the city is safe enough that people want to live in it, that it isn’t burdensome to start a business, and so on.

In tiny towns, they may be the ones leading the charge by default. Someone has to provide direction and keep participants focused, but it cannot be top-down decision-making. The technology center, the Chamber of Commerce, and other local services each have their own areas of expertise, and should have the freedom to do their work.

Governments can pay tens or hundreds of thousands to assess their current situation and form a strategic plan for the future. Such detailed plans have their time and place, but are by no means necessary to starting the process. It can start with an informal conversation—asking business owners about their particular challenges, or asking around about individuals’ specific concerns. When more people are included in the process, not only is the public sector better able to serve them, but it gives those people a sense of ownership. That sense of ownership will lead them to advocate for that same vision to their neighbors as they go about their daily lives.

There is no universal formula for a city to grow. Many times, the key variable is simply being in the right place at the right time. There is a temptation for a city to simply sit and wait for the big chance to come. There’s another to put itself out there for every opportunity that might remotely come along. While there is nothing inherently wrong with either patience or aggression in this area, it cannot be the entirety of the strategy. The bulk of the time and energy must be reinvested in the community and taking care of your own. Otherwise, chances are that at the right time, you won’t be the right place.

(Matt Brooks has a B.A. in public policy from USAO. He is a research analyst for a non-profit and a website designer.)