Most experts consider economic development to be the dominant factor influencing urban politics. They point to the importance of the finance and real estate industries, the need to improve the tax base, and the push to create jobs. Bruce F. Berg maintains that there are three forces which are equally important in explaining New York City economic development; the city’s relationships with the state and federal governments, which influence taxation, revenue and public policy responsibilities; and New York City’s racial and ethnic diversity, resulting in demands for more equitable representation and greater equity in the delivery of public goods and services.
New York City Politics focuses on the impact of these three forces on the governance of New York City’s political system including the need to promote democratic accountability, service delivery equity, as well as the maintenance of civil harmony. This second edition updates the discussion with examples from the Bloomberg and de Blasio administrations as well as current public policy issues including infrastructure, housing and homelessness, land use regulations, and education.
This book has no real argument and is mainly a collection of quotes and anecdotes distilled from thousands of newspaper articles over the past 40-odd years. Why is it still worth reading then? Because having all these political battles, both grand and picayune, placed in one big book gives the reader perspective and context he or she can't get from the daily paper.
For instance, telling a story that involves both Bloomberg's proposed West Side Stadium and Forest City Ratner's Net Arena in Brooklyn and explaining how both projects came down to an obscure agency called the State Public Authorities Board (composed of the governor, and the leaders of the two states houses), and explaining why the first failed there while the second succeeded, helps explain how economic development actually gets done in New York. Likewise, explaining the evolution of the city council from Peter Vallone's semi-autocratic speaker-ship (1986-2001) through Gifford Miller's vacillating reign (2001-2006) shows the importance of both the charter change (imposed in 1991 by the US Supreme Court, it expanded the number of seats to 51 as well as the council's power) and term limits (which kicked most of the members out in 2001 and broke down party unity and to some extent the council's influence).
The book also demonstrates how and why local politics and government is so fractured. One example is in the realm of intergovernmental relations. Originally only the mayor's office had lobbying offices in Albany and Washington D.C., but in the 1990s the council expanded to have its own offices and lobbying shops in each of these towns, in order to pitch its own, distinct agenda. Likewise, the author shows how the municipal bureaucracy operates in relative independence from both the council and sometimes even the mayor. For instance, the Parks Department has no more than a sentence explaining its function in the charter, and NO council ordinances telling it what to do (compared, say, to thousands of pages governing federal bureaucracies,), so they have vast discretion. The mayor can appoint the heads of these agencies, but he often can't control them. In each case, the city's government is shown to be a collection of competing interest groups often operating at cross-purposes.
So, if you want to be reminded of some old political stories, or you just want a good overview of how government functions in the nation's largest city, this is a good place to start.
This was NOT a fun book. Reading it felt like working - a bad job. But it was an important book too. So much attention is focused on US politics and some even on state politics. A book like this shines the light properly on local government and points out how amazingly complicated it all is. Granted, ain't no city as great and intriguing as New York City, so we can't claim this book has an application to all city governments. Yet all local governments have their complexities. Also, one can see why mayors of New York City can make a more convincing case for national leadership than most US governors can make. In the number of people, the dollars floating about, and the heterogeneity of the population, mayors have a lot on their plates. Not a fun read, but a necessary one.