For all their glitter,

the cities of the world

only touch us as voyeurs

 

Leonard Quart

 

I was repelled a while back watching NYC's Mayor Bloomberg strutting un-selfconsciously like a cartoon plutocrat, dismissive and tone deaf to any criticism of his Wall Street 'buddies'.
     Given his complete identification with 'big money', his middle-of-the-night eviction of the OWS protesters from Zuccotti Park was predictable and probably long in planning. But one hopes it will strengthen rather than hurt their cause, since eventually they would have to become more politically defined and hierarchal (despite their antipathy to leadership and top down politics), and would have themselves moved out of the camp's chaotic and wearying cocoon into the larger world.
     The forced eviction may ultimately move them to construct some sort of political agenda, or else the movement, despite its passion and authenticity, will collapse. For there are profound limits to what free-form politics and consensual democracy can ever achieve. Purity of heart, and being on the side of the angels, are never in themselves sufficient to move those who hold power, whatever their ideological leanings. Still, the OWS has succeeded in shifting the political discussion from debt to inequality.
     To be fair, the police did not act that night like what the progressive political blog Daily Kos hyperbolically called 'Bloomberg's Stormtroopers'. For despite the police's riot gear, some brutish behavior towards the protesters, and their forcibly keeping the press away, it wasn't a strikingly violent act of suppression. Especially compared to what has happened in other cities, with more liberal mayors – like Oakland. But the eviction was clearly an abhorrent overreaction by Bloomberg, who felt it imperative to demonstrate his power to undermine an idealistic protest movement that he had bad-mouthed and felt revulsion towards from its inception. I suspect he was exhilarated by the whole operation.
     Bloomberg is a politician I dislike – arrogant, autocratic, and filled with contempt for those who are willing to demonstrate against his complacent vision of a society built on vast economic inequalities. (Bloomberg had derisively suggested that the OWS protesters would make a difference by opening a business.) He has always blamed HUD, Fannie Mae, and Congress for our economic collapse, and absolved the financiers and the private sector of any wrongdoing.
     Still, nothing in politics is that simple. Bloomberg may not resemble my notion of an ideal mayor, but on the whole, he has been a relatively effective leader of the city. (Though after ruthlessly amending term limits, his third term has seen his reputation for technocratic efficiency and political astuteness tarnished over a series of scandals with contractors, and his hiring and then firing of an unqualified magazine publisher, from his moneyed milieu, Cathleen P Black, as schools' chancellor.)
     He has repaired 750 bridges, provided vast investments for a new water tunnel, built new parks that line the Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan waterfronts, is completing an extension of the No.7 subway line, has been an advocate for comprehensive immigrant law reform and expanded legal services for immigrants, and has been relatively successful in providing affordable housing. In the last few weeks he has announced that Cornell University in collaboration with Israel's Technicon will create a new science graduate school on Roosevelt Island, in an ambitious bid to spur a boom in New York City's high-tech sector. Bloomberg's capacity to think big sometimes bears fruit.

 

     He has also been generally successful at maintaining the city's services, and keeping its budget in order – two of a mayor's prime responsibilities. We don't have to find a politician sympathetic, philosophically or personally, to perceive his virtues. I am antipathetic to Bloomberg's uncritical embrace of the interests of his Wall Street pals, but when it comes to urban policy, he is probably no less a believer in government action than more liberal mayors.
     Bloomberg, however, is in power at a time when cities are much less capable of dealing with the myriad problems they face. According to urban historian Michael B Katz in his new book, 'Why Don't American Cities Burn?' (University of Penn Press) there has been a radical shift over the last 100 years in the nature of city government.
     In the first 40 years of the 20th century, cities tried to respond to widespread poverty, pervasive corruption, and racial discrimination, by 'progressive government'. Cities were in the ascent during those years, and in his words, they 'increased municipal expenditures, professionalised their administrations, and constructed buildings and infrastructures that supported the most successful period in American urban history'. Of course, that didn't mean the cities weren't still rife with poverty, racism, and substandard living conditions despite the institution of reforms.
     It's just that by the late 20th century most American cities were in decline. Katz writes that the radical reduction of federal spending led to the creation of private initiatives in cities, like 'special service districts' that provide security and cleaning, and park conservancies that basically maintain parks like Central Park. Cities must face a growing array of urban problems: from homelessness and crime to extreme inequality in public education spending, to loss of industry and jobs, and to a crumbling infrastructure. I would suggest that these problems derive as much or more from demographic and technological changes than from shifts in government policy, though cuts in federal spending only exacerbate the city's difficulties.
     Also, those of us who live in cities like New York that ostensibly have been resurrected, know that the glitter, dazzle, and sensate pleasure of the city doesn't touch the majority of New Yorkers, except as voyeurs. The social, structural, and budgetary problems that cities face just can't be covered over by streets filled with boutiques, cafes, and wine bars, however seductive they are. The city I live in is the one tourists, for better or worse, visit in droves, and is worlds apart from the one a high school drop-out in the South Bronx or a home care worker in Crown Heights faces each day. The latter is the city many tourists and Manhattan denizens never see.
     Yes, Bloomberg could possibly do more if his social concern was as great as his environmental commitment (that also has its critics). He has built more parks, painted miles of bike lanes, planted a million trees, cut pollution and expanded the ban on smoking in indoor workplaces to outdoor venues including public parks and beaches. But there are limits to what any city can do (without federal help) to transform its schools, end mortgage foreclosures, and reduce unemployment. No magical solutions exist, as long as the Republican Party, like a ventriloquist's dummy, refuses to do anything but reflexively oppose all tax rises for the wealthy and the corporations, and cry out against government intervention.

 

Leonard Quart is a professor emeritus of American studies