After Pugh: Should one search for a savior?

In face of the tragic images of a once again disgraced Baltimore mayor being hauled into court, anyone who cares about Baltimore will ask: Why is it that we can't do better? Do the leaders drag the city down or does the condition of the city drag the leaders leaders down? Are these leaders what we deserve or can we get better ones? Some may ask, do leaders even matter?

Former Mayor Catherine Pugh being arraigned in
Federal Court (WBAL)

Those questions are similar to the nature or nurture debate: What is DNA and what is choice?  Or the one between idealists and materialists: Is Hegel right that ideas shape reality or Karl Marx who countered that material conditions shape the ideas?

Are cities shaped by material conditions such as the presence of a deepwater Port, deindustrialization, demographic change and other such things they cant control or are they thriving and faltering based on the quality of their leaders?

Most would probably say its a bit of both. A particularly gloomy Baltimore variant of a hybrid goes like this: Because we are doomed by the external circumstances of a postindustrial, shrinking, weak-market city we can't attract any other type leader than  machine politicians who aren’t there to lead but who cater at best to entrenched constituent groups and at worst to themselves.

Sky high murder rates, a governor who took $5 billion dollar out of Baltimore's economy (Red Line, State Center) a place-holder mayor who prides himself of not having committed murder, corporate local stars such as Alex Brown and now Under Armour losing luster, seem to verify the gllomy theory. Only the Ravens offer a glimmer of hope. Sure is that the city isn't  “moving forward” (one of Catherine Pugh’s favorite expressions). But does it have to be that way or are is Baltimore trading far below its potential?

The bleeding has gone on for about 70 years, no matter how much optimism urban boosters may have spread, no matter how many urban renewal projects were completed, how many Dollar Houses were renovated, how many Empowerment, Investment or Opportunity Zones were declared and no matter who was mayor In those last seventy years the metropolitan statistical area has grown from 1.2 million in 1950 to 2.8 million now while the city shrank by a third from nearly a million to just about 600,000.

Trends have come and gone. Urban flight, urban renaissance, highway boosting and highway busting, two fiery unrests, downtown development and neighborhood development, big government, small government and public private partnerships. Baltimore offered model developments like Harborplace and Camden Yards, copied worldwide and offered the backdrop for crime stories like Homicide and the Wire. Through all of it it continued to shrink and became less important in the State and the nation.

This protracted decline, no matter what the medicine, no matter who the doctor speaks for bad DNA. Something that is intrinsically wrong with Baltimore, either its physical setting or its demographic male up.

Our neighbors in DC, New York, Boston and increasingly also Philadelphia have managed stunning come-backs. Anyone who can look beyond the horizon of our own limited city boundaries will see that almost any peer city with a "rustbelt" post-industrial city DNA is doing far better  than Baltimore, especially when it comes to population growth and crime rates. While this insight may deepen the depression, this observation points towards bad leadership as the main cause of the malaise.

If even  Newark, Cleveland, St Louis, Hartford or Columbus can generate better metrics than we, then what other than leadership would explain that?

Our DNA isn't worse thatn that of those other cities. In fact, our externalities are actual better: We are the largest city in the wealthiest state in the nation. We are located near the nation's capital, we have a beautiful natural setting and are located on the only high speed rail corridor in the country. One would think some of that may rub off.

Additionally, national and international trends are helpful to cities: Urban living is all the rage once again, especially among the younger, upwardly mobile people. But Baltimore is profiting from its positive setting and surroundings and the trend back to cities in a way that hasn't led to a turnaround. In spite of the continued shrinkage, the tax base recently stayed remarkably stable because the smaller number of incoming better educated and earning residents could make up for the larger number of people still leaving the city. Not only does the shrinkage continue in a still growing metro area where the city has failed to capture its fair share of the metropolitan growth, many neighborhoods are still sinking deeper into disrepair and abandonment. Thus they are in no shape to keep their residents, let alone attract new ones.

Baltimore has always looked to New Orleans and Detroit for comfort. Two places that fared even worse than Charm City, especially when it came to corrupt leaders and badly performing city services. But that consolation is gone. In fact, both cities have staged a come back as well, especially in public perception. The reality may be less rosy, but the nation is bullish about them. By contrast, Baltimore is usually mentioned as a loser to such an extent, that visitors are surprised how much better reality is than the image.

New Orleans and Detroit can serve as exhibits for the argument that a city can recover from unfavorable externalities (Katrina, the decline of American car industry) if there is a good mayor. They prove that a decisive, competent and charismatic mayor can not only be elected but can improve a city against all odds and even after it had become a national poster-child of incompetence. Initially, the improvement is mostly psychological. Trust comes slowly. Competence and clear directives improve basic services. Once they function again on a basic level, constituents can believe in their city again and bigger ideas be approached. A mayor who does what he (or she) says and must have first ideas and then the energy, the talent, the support and the team to see them through. Once it is clear where the journey goes, money follows. Money from real estate investors, from stakeholders and sometimes even from state and federal government.

Aside from water meters, sewer lines, policing and traffic signals Baltimore's services have never been as bad as those in New Orleans or Detroit once were. But unlike those two cities, Baltimore continues its tailspin, especially after the unrest in 2015. Distrust in the police is at the root of public cynicism and the vicious cycle that follows. A fight well known to New Orleans. Baltimore has NOLA's police commissioner now, but Mayor Landrieu provided a different type of back-up. He would never have told his city that crime conditions had nothing to do with  poor leadership.

I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us. And make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago — we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and a more perfect union.(Mayor Landrieu, May 2017)

Mayor Duggan in Detroit, now in his second term, may not be as eloquent as his NOLA counterpart. But he has shown a lot of action (see here) that ended the tailspin and created a virtuous cycle instead. For one thing the murder rate sank by 30% to around 260 in 2018, not bad for a city still larger than Baltimore, even though Motown's overall crime rate is still higher than most other cities.

“We have to do more to keep our community safe. We hit rock bottom six years ago with the highest homicide rate in America. We've made progress. We are not celebrating what we've done, but we're going to build on it." (Mayor Duggan in May 2019)

So is it all about leadership, no matter what the DNA? Didn't have Baltimore any good mayors in 70 years? Certainly it did. But it has been quite some time since a Baltimore mayor laid out a clear path and vision for where the city should be going. A convincing narrative. An agenda where all pieces add up to a larger comprehensive and doable future. An image of a city that residents, visitors and investors could like, believe and engage for. The Baltimore SUN sure thinks its time for a strong leader.

But we should have known that Baltimore needed — deserved — more than a so-called safe choice. We should have set our sights, and standards, higher.
We won’t make that mistake again. (Baltimore SUN editorial 11-21-19)

The Baltimore Business Journal toots into the same horn. In an editorial today Editor in chief Joanna Sullivan has this to say:

I've covered Baltimore longer than Young has been in office, and can't really name anything spectacular or visionary he has done for the City. [...] Just OK is not OK for Baltimore's next mayor. (BBJ Joanna Sullivan)

But banking on a mayoral savior maybe misguided. Dan Sparaco, once an aid to former Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake is more cynical regarding the search for a strong leader. He says the system is broken. As a former insider he would know. In his most recent missive about Baltimore he observes:

Each election, we wait for a superman or a superwoman who can overcome this system of inherited power and entrenched interests that, to mere mortals, seem impossible to overcome. But that superhero candidate for mayor never seems to emerge. (Dan Sparaco on Nov 18, 2019)

Indeed, the time of the grand projects and the big urban heroes (or villains) like Burnham (Chicago, "make no small plans"), Olmsted (many US cities), McMillan (Washington) or Koch (New York) seems quaintly yesterday in a time when government funds are scarce and the people question has become so much larger than building big stuff out of brick and mortar. No longer is the key to success big new shiny stuff. It is about the hard work to build up trust, education, competency, social capital and some sense of purpose. Still, even without big construction projects, tackling these hard issues requires good governance and good leadership. Even if the current system hasn't worked or is broken, Baltimore can be glad it allows a strong mayor and not just a figurehead.

Even a midsize city like Baltimore is a very complex undertaking in which the puzzle pieces will never fall into place by sheer luck. Even when social capital, equity and social justice are the drivers, it takes a lot of pull and push to make things to add up. And for the pushing and pulling to go in the right direction, it needs a clear set of goals and strong guidance. It was never Baltimore's problem that there weren't enough initiatives, enough small heroes on a thousands fronts. There was never a shortage of ideas, creativity or people willing to engage. But here everyone seems to do their thing without that a larger picture ever emerges. What has been missing for quite some time is someone who aligns the magnets.

Baltimore's DNA is good in spite of rot and widespread alienation. There are plenty of opportunities. The upcoming elections are only one. An opportunity to rectify leadership and complement the lately willing, able and active city council with a strong executive. An opportunity to elect a mayor who is able to describe such an agenda and unite the "two Baltimores" behind it. Not some pie in the sky dreamworld but an actual path that builds on the city's strengths, addresses the weaknesses and capitalizes on the major trends in the economy, demographics and technology.

So far it is hard to identify this potential in any of the candidates. But as the presidential campaign shows, campaigns are fluid and bring about new perspectives, both about what needs to be done and who is most suited to do it.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

updated for language and grammar 11/23/19