The Future Once Happened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America's Big Cities

This is a story - a classic tragedy, if you will. The rise of the big cities. The fall of the big cities. And finally, the promise of their redemption. Fred Siegel's book identifies the source of urban America's decline: their enthusiastic embrace of Sixties Liberalism, not only in personal behavior but as public policy. In 1965, America was in the midst of a midlife crisis. Strong and self-rghteous for so long, the country began to entangle itself in self-doubt. The origins could be tracked to the original Civil Rights Movement which rightfully forced middle-class America to confront their own hypocricy and prejudice. The aims of the original Civil Rights leaders was not to overthrow American society. Rather, it was to demand that we enforce our Constitutional laws and stop mocking the principles in the Declaration of the Independence. Men like Dr. King understood the promise and beauty of America. The last thing they wanted to do was undermine it. But five days after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Los Angeles erupted in a race riot. Large sections of Watts were burned to the ground and dozens were killed. In 1967 and 1968, deadly race riots broke out in Washington, Cleveland, Detroit, and other urban centers. Middle class families who lived in the city couldn't understand what was happening. Many of them fled to the suburbs; the so-called "white flight." But most of them stayed - at least initially. At the end of the 1960s, the question that urban leaders faced, writes Siegel, was "how do we deal with the twin problems of race and poverty?" One option was to stick with the past solution of cultural assimilation and private sector advancement. But that wasn't good enough anymore. Instead, a combination of intellectuals, minority activists, big-spending pols, and "compassionate" voters took a large and unprecedented gamble. The millions of black families that had crowded into northern cities since World War II would be the guinea pigs in a great liberal experiment. Blacks and other racial minorities would no longer be encouraged to assimilate into American society. Afterall, the middle-class lifestyle was "sick" and "guilty." In a complete reversal of Dr. King's dream, blacks would be expected to create their own norms, values, and institutions. While this may seem to be a perverse triumph of individualism, it was a unique form; it would be what Siegel labels "dependent individualism." In other words, while city residents would be expected to unshackle themselves of moral restraints, they would also do it at taxpayer expense. Poverty, the liberal activists charged, was a problem of money - people didn't have enough of it. It some cases that was true. But in other cases it wasn't true. Unfortunately, welfare payments came to subsidize a whole dysfunctional subculture. In the 1970s and 1980s, the "riot ideology" impregnated a large majority of city voter

An excellent history coverage, Fred Siegel's The Future Once Happened Here examines three major U.S. cities which are metaphors for American social life. From urban problems and solutions to historical trends which have changed the face of these cities, New York, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles are treated to expert analysis.

This book is excellent dissection of the failure of American urban policy since the 1960s, but it does have some flaws of note. Fred Siegel has a clear point to make, but all too frequently he gets waylaid by his own grudges. It is obvious that this man is a Democrat in the conservative mold furious at the disastrous manner in which Liberals in the late 1960s and 1970s ran three of America's finest cities. Fine. 1960's Liberalism was a disaster for Americas cities, particularly New York, Washington & Los Angeles. Point taken and agreed upon, but time and again this point is made in an angry and confrontational manner.Siegel's publisher would have done good to convince his author to adopt a more conciliatory tone. This book is angry, and the author's anger perhaps serves a dual purpose- to showcase how angry moderate, suburban Democrats (such as this reviewer) are at how urban liberals led the party astray, and to mirror the anger and contempt these liberals felt towards their critics.Good message. Uneven delivery.

I am a traditional and yet often disillusioned Democrat. That is, I am a proud member of the party of FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ but am often disillusioned by the 'new left' and its often out of touch agenda. I am more of a traditional New Deal Democrat. That is, socially I am more moderately conservative(though occasionally moderately liberal)while being a staunch social welfare liberal(within the context of personal responsibility). As the reader may tell, my ideology is confusing. The feeling of being confused was explicitly outlined well in this book, which tells of the faults of liberalism from a proud New Democrat. I have always yearned for a national agenda to take back our cities from the explosion of destitution, violence and moral and physical poverty which has plagued them. Siegal's book allows us to have a great framework in which to begin. Siegal identifies one huge roadblock to progress in urban America: the habbit to, in the words of Moynihan, 'define deviancy down.' Morals and values have turned loss in many cities. Yet, the author must not forget the morals and values turned loose by the powers that be. That is, corporate America most assuredly has not treated urban centers well, neither has our federal government(whose real funding to urban america has declined by 50% over the past 20 years). What do we need? We need a new agenda of corporate responsibility, public and social investment and private sector compassion and responsibility. Businesses must be given incentives to once again invest in our cities. Government must invest through health care, nutrition, education and, most of all, a WPA-like job training and employment infrastructure program. There is no better remedy to what hurts some than work. Yet, as Siegal points out as a New Democrat, there is more than simple 'business and taxes' involved here. A sense of responsibility must arise from our urban centers. Thus, the author is correct in attacking racial antagonizers and some liberals(though surely not all)for wrecking New York. Yet, I sense he is too ready to distance himself from liberalism. That is, he overly bashes it while not giving conservatism the lumps it needs. That is all too typical of New Democrats, for all of their many positives. In many ways, Siegal commits an error when he excessively tries to distance himself from liberalism. For all of his bashing of Sharpton (more than justified - what a demagogue and race baiter!)and Cuomo(not too justified - a great man and a great Governor), he has little bashing of Reagan("welfare queens"), Goldwater, Gingrich and the gang. That is wrong. The right wing's inaction on poverty has only worsened the problem while, surely, the left's over action in some areas(such as political correctnss and moral relativism)has hurt badly, too. Both sides deserve a rebuke. I would have liked to see a moral center arise explicitly from this work.

Fred Siegel very effectively portrays the political forces that have combined to effectively destroy our central cities. Siegel characterizes post Wagner New York as being controlled by a "new Tammany Hall" driven largely by unchallenged municipal employee unions and social service provider lobbies. The result is a "leaky bucket" economy that leaves little for recipients of social services or for residents. While he does not use the "new Tammany Hall" label for his other two subjects --- Washington, DC and Los Angeles --- the net result in those two cities is similar. All three central cities --- and most other larger American central cities --- are becoming much poorer in relation to their suburbs, continue to lose middle income residents to the suburbs and face even more uncertain futures. The conventional wisdom has been to blame the decline of the cities on external factors, especially a perception that the US federal government has failed to provide sufficient financial resources. But Siegel disputes this view, showing that federal funding has not declined, it has only not risen as fast as burgeoning city budgets. Siegel shows that central city decline is, first of all, the result of conscious city-level policies that have "back-fired." For those inclined to believe that the central cities must be restored to their former importance, such as through densifying "new urbanist" policies, "The Future Once Happened Here" will be very disappointing. Siegel shows that the cities have been abandoned by middle income people because they have failed in their fundamental duty of security (crime prevention), failed to educate children effectively, failed to provide quality public services and failed to maintain a competitive tax structure. Siegel's work supports the thesis that the fundamental problem of the cities is not revenues, it is spending --- how else could such public policy failure be achieved at so great a cost? Residents are free to leave, and many do. Siegel notes that a large percentage of residents in each city plan to leave. Ben Bissenger's recent book on Philadelphia ("A Prayer for the City") chronicles the decision making process of one dedicated urbanite family that tried more than once to live in the central city, but was driven out by crime. It is a less difficult decision for people and families who have no particular passion for the city. As a result, the cities are increasingly populated by those with low income, and those with high enough income to opt out of reliance on city services, through expensive private schools and high security apartment buildings. But there are even worse examples than the New York, Washington and Los Angeles examples that Siegel relies upon. In less than 50 years, St. Louis has managed to drive away 60 percent of its population. More people have moved out of Detroit and Chicago combined than live in metropolitan Portland (Oregon). Cleveland --- the current darling of the urban revitalization che