Cities as Partners in the Federal System
American cities may be described by the proverbial "good newsbad news" adage. The good news is that they embody the best of our accomplishments in insitutional and commercial developments, the arts, architecture, and culture. They are the focal point of most American lives: even if we do not live in cities, we work and play in them. The bad news is that American cities house the worst of our excesses as evidenced by congestion, deterioration, pollution, crime, and poverty. Not unexpectedly, therefore, public programs for cities are mixed. Some are aimed at city growth and development, while others deal with deteriorating conditions and the increasing number of city poor. The national public policy agenda for cities is characterized by a knowledge that "something" must be done about city problems, but lack of agreement or direction about what that "something" should be. This is not due to indifference or neglect. Every postwar administration has established programs to aid American cities generally, or central cities specifically. Many of these efforts have been enormously successful; others have not met expectations; and still others have not proceeded beyond the deliberation stage. The legacy of four postwar decades of urban programs is that national, state, and local officials are still trying to decide what's wrong, what should be done, and who (meaning national, state, and local governments, or all) should do it. A growing consensus has emerged in recent years that city problems, now so complex and interwoven into the national fabric, cannot be solved locally. Many experts conclude, therefore, that national initiatives should direct action on city problems. Urban economists, for example, are certain that the amelioration of city conditions (whether they are social service ones such as unemployment and