February 2004

Domestic Policy Watch

Copyright by American Planning Association

The Anti-Community Budget

By W. Paul Farmer, AICP
APA Executive Director

In viewpoint last July in Planning magazine, I raised questions about the federal threats to America's communities, calling them "potentially the greatest change in federal transportation, housing, and environmental policy since the late 1960s." Today those threats are even greater.

We are faced with even more radical policy proposals and even more severe budget reductions. In commenting on last year's proposals, most of which were not approved, I noted: "Add to this [collection of proposals] the impact of recent tax cuts, which are likely to produce an enormous federal deficit, and a dramatic decrease in domestic spending for the programs citizens care about will be the inevitable reality." That reality is now upon us, and the warning must be sounded again.

As planners, we know that budgets are all about priorities. Earlier this month, President Bush submitted to Congress his budget for the 2005 fiscal year. His priorities can be characterized by just one sentence from a report of the well-respected, nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The tax cuts for the top one percent of households would cost more than would be saved from all of the domestic discretionary cuts." www.cbpp.org

The President's budget projected a fiscal deficit in excess of $500 billion, a historic amount, certainly, but not the most important part of the story. A closer look at the details of the President's new budget reveals the real deficit. The real deficit is lack of commitment to the very concept of community. That deficit is reflected in a series of public policy decisions that prevent communities from realizing the visions of enhanced livability — protected parks and open space, increased choice in housing and transportation, heightened neighborhood vitality and reinvestment — articulated by citizens and captured in plans across the nation. The real deficit is obvious in the callous disregard of the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, the yardstick many use to measure the true greatness of a nation.

One can't help being struck by the underlying philosophy of this budget, which would fundamentally change the relationship of Washington to cities, towns, and neighborhoods. Suddenly the deficit that wasn't going to happen — was going to be small, then larger — is now a reason for spending restraint. Of course, enormous tax cuts for the wealthy had nothing to do with it, nor did the loss of more than two million jobs, and their contributions to the economy. No, suddenly the culprit is spending, so the solution must be cuts in domestic spending.

Not only has the President proposed an array of cuts to core programs, but responsibility is being shifted to already cash-strapped states, burdening localities with the cost of vital community services. Cut federal domestic programs, shift authority to states, and leave local governments with the responsibility and the bill for critical public needs.

The proposed budget cuts for 2005 will severely impact the health and quality of life of communities throughout the nation. Housing programs, parks, land conservation, transportation, and economic development are all in jeopardy. Communities of all sizes will bear a larger burden if Congress approves this budget. The poor, including the working poor, will feel these cuts most acutely and tragically. A brief sample of proposals demonstrates why.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Federal dollars, mostly in the form of grants, pay for programs that are critical to revitalizing neighborhoods and promoting affordable housing around the country. Proposals for HUD's 2005 budget attempt to eliminate several core programs. HUD's proposed budget provides an excellent example of the administration's desire to place more responsibility for housing policy with states at the expense of localities. Individuals lose and communities lose.

HOPE VI grants are used to rehabilitate ailing public housing and improve the surrounding community. Last year's proposed budget called for eliminating the program. Congress rejected that approach and funded the program at $149 million in 2004. Under HUD's 2005 budget, this program is again slated to lose all funding.

Section 8 vouchers are also in jeopardy. These vouchers provide much needed rental assistance to lower-income households and help build stronger communities. Under HUD's 2005 budget, these vouchers will become part of the general Flexible Voucher Program and lose $1 billion in federal funds. By 2009, the program would lose 40 percent of its current funding.

To demonstrate the radical nature of this budget, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes: "These cuts are deeper, and the policy changes more sweeping and threatening to the low-income families and elderly and disabled people whom the program serves, than any proposal advanced by any prior Administration during the program's 30-year history. The program began in 1974, when it was created under the Nixon administration."

The Center's report concludes: "The proposals in the Administration's fiscal year 2005 budget would result in a fundamental shift in the direction of federal housing policy and the abandonment of 30 years of progress in improving and expanding the voucher program."

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) provide annual direct grants to low- and moderate-income communities so they can expand affordable housing, improve community facilities and services, and attract investments that create job and business opportunities for lower income people and neighborhoods. About $334 million in CDBG funds is slashed from HUD's 2005 budget. Urban Empowerment Zones (this year funded at $15 million) and rural housing and economic development grants (this year funded at $25 million) would receive zero money.

Department of Homeland Security

The trend of underfunding programs aimed at aiding communities is obvious even in the Department of Homeland Security, where so-called "First Responders" are among the few programs to be cut. As noted in The New York Times by Jack Weiss, a Los Angeles City Council member, "Federal announcements of a terrorism alert seem to be as regular as clockwork — but there's been no talk of federal help to cities." The proposed budget promises no new help, just cuts to existing programs, leaving local officials and planners with more responsibilities and fewer resources.

Parks, Open Space, and Land Conservation

One of the most striking trends in local ballot initiatives and referenda in recent years is the consistent success of measures related to parks, open space, and land conservation. The Trust for Public Land found that, in the 2002 election, three-quarters of all conservation ballot measures passed, creating an estimated value of $10 billion in conservation funding. Such results have been consistent since the 1990s.

In striking contrast to citizens' willingness to tax themselves to preserve land, increase recreation, and improve parks, the federal government has steadily retreated on these same issues. In every budget put forward during his presidency, President Bush has recommended eliminating funding for urban parks and scaled back promised increases for an array of federal conservation programs. This year, once again, the Bush budget allocates $0 for urban parks and calls for deep cuts in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). This year the proposed total for LWCF is actually $314 million, well short of the promised $900 million. In 2000, Candidate Bush pledged to fully fund LWCF, yet each year the administration tries to mask the fact that actual LWCF funding has steadily eroded under his stewardship.

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency fares no better. EPA is slated for a 7 percent cut, the largest for any federal agency. The $600 million cut would disproportionately affect waste treatment programs and other clean water activities. Once again, cities and towns will bear the burden of this budget's priorities. Municipalities struggling to promote redevelopment may cheer the fact that EPA's brownfields program will receive full funding. At the same time, they will be chagrined to learn that HUD's brownfields program, along with its $25 million, is eliminated as "redundant." The net result is substantial reduction in brownfields funding.

Department of Transportation

Transportation programs, with their obvious economic impact on job creation and mobility for workers and freight alike, would seem impervious to the administration's slash and shift approach. Not so. With Congress actively debating the reauthorization of TEA-21 and leaders of both parties calling for funding increases, the White House insists that here is the place for fiscal discipline. Veto threats abound for congressionally supported increases in transportation, and overall funding levels for transit remain in jeopardy.

Moreover, policy changes promoted by the Bush administration would raise communities' transit costs by increasing the local match requirements for such projects. As communities struggle with air quality problems and the looming impact of new air pollution standards, the amount proposed for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program is woefully inadequate to meet rising demand. Finally, the administration remains resistant to moving more resources to local and regional officials. Despite a growing body of research suggesting a serious inequity in the proportion of transportation funding states provide for metropolitan areas, current proposals continue to channel resources to the states.

Budget Priorities

Budgets, we all realize, are rarely fully realized in the final appropriations process and serve an inherently political function. That political function is important because it clearly articulates priorities and philosophy — a detailed road map for where a President wants to take the country. That destination shortchanges key domestic programs, shifts tax and service burdens to local governments, and threatens to undermine the quality of life in communities across the nation.

This budget, when seen in the context of other policy decisions made by the Bush administration, is clearly part of a larger design that will force local governments to either raise taxes or cut key services. Washington rhetoric about the size of government will become a harsh reality filled with difficult choices for Main Street America.

"Starve the Beast" may play well before some election year audiences. But too often lost in the focus on the overall deficit figure is the fact that a systematic disinvestment in community-level programs is taking place without regard to how these critical needs will be met. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that "the President's budget proposes much larger cuts in domestic discretionary programs than has been generally understood or been reported to date in the media. ... The cuts generally would start in years after 2005 and grow wider with each passing year."

National Planning Conference

As I stated in Planning, "this is not a partisan issue. Rather, it is a fundamental issue of public policy that will influence our communities for decades. Now, more than ever, planners must raise their voices for good public policy and become engaged in advancing the national civic agenda." APA's National Planning Conference (April 24–28, 2004) in Washington, D.C., will feature several sessions discussing the federal agenda for housing, transportation, and the environment. In addition, all attendees can participate for free in Planner's Day on Capitol Hill and bring a pro-community point of view to lawmakers. Our conference and congressional meetings are especially timely. The stakes are high: More than a generation's worth of vital programs and safeguards are under siege.

Conclusion

Planners understand that strong communities are the very fabric of our society. Strong communities are what we work for every day. Strong communities are what bring us together as a nation and make us safe and secure. We cannot idly watch the federal government abandon the civic partnership that historically addressed the problems of both our urban and rural areas. We need to continue fighting for restored funding for the core programs that help create and sustain healthy and prosperous communities across America. We need to continue fighting for those less fortunate and prove that we are still a great nation willing to pass this test.

Responses by members are encouraged and will be posted in a special section of the APA website. Consistent with APA publications policy, they may not be anonymous. Click here to respond.