First, Cowboy urban renewal also had its share as well (Stamford, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Santa Monica)[1]. The South built them also in Miami and Norfolk VA In short they are common to CBs across Region, Rust Belt or Sunbelt. Examples such Town Square in St Paul, and a mass transit-inspired version in Buffalo[2]. In many instances, these downtown mall ventures were revivals of the Progressive Coalition, aka the Growth Coalition, complete with strong, what we shall shortly label as, “messianic” mayors–a sort of last hurrah so to speak. The subsequent short and intermediate term performance of these downtown malls was decidedly mixed to poor, but in recent years has, with increased gentrification, looked somewhat better. Urban renewal tends to look better the longer the period of hindsight.
Neither Festival Markets nor mass transit, however, was the dominant and most pervasive economic development strategy of central cities during the 1970’s. Neighborhood revitalization was! Based on a considerable dose of nostalgia for the neighborhoods of yester year and a degree of organization, inspiration, leadership capacity, city council representation, and electoral cohesiveness brought about by OEO and Model Cities, neighborhoods had evolved from the “shout, pout and clout” days of the late sixties. A nation-wide neighborhood movement had crystallized around a core of professional advocates, a literature and a body of knowledge, and a congruence of popular opinion and media spin. It didn’t hurt that CDBG (community development block grants) provided a level of funding for neighborhood-based organizations and activities. Neighborhoods were very much the thing to do and it would remain so thru the seventies and well into the eighties.
TIF
First, like the local government system itself, TIF is highly decentralized, with the critical decisions concerning whether to adopt TIF, where to place the district, and what type of development to promote determined locally.
Second, TIF exemplifies the fiscalization of local development policy. TIF enables local governments to pursue what is often the principal development goal–increased tax base while avoiding the legal limits on increased local taxation.
Third, TIF plays off the fragmentation of local governments. TIF reflects and reinforces the competition among neighboring governments as they bid for private investment….
Finally,… TIF programs are market-oriented, aimed at inducing or retaining investment by private entrepreneurs. Moreover, local governments use TIF to act as entrepreneurs (themselves), formulating and implementing public plans…[3].
EDZ
Also, the White House, led by entrepreneurs Under Secretary Lee Verstandig and Deputy Assistant Secretary (Stuart Sloame) “proselytized all over” the merits of EDZs. Think Tanks such as the Heritage Foundation (Butler himself) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) were seriously involved in state-level activities. The National Association of State Development Agencies (NASDA), the Council of State Community Affairs Agencies (COSCAA) and CUED and a newly formed Association of Enterprise Zones (AAEZ) also played important leadership and supporting roles urging approvals of the EDZ concept. NGOs such as National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities and National Conference of State Legislatures all took positions supporting and facilitating EDZ passage in the states.[4]
[1] IBID. p. 195.
[2] Bernard Frieden and L. B. Sagalyn, Downtown, Inc: How America Rebuilds Cities (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1989); W. S. Kowinski, The Malling of America: An inside look at the great consumer paradise (New York, William Morrow, 1985); J. Black, L. H. Thomas and S. L. Rogal, Downtown Retail Development: Conditions for Success and project profiles, (Washington D.C., Urban Land Institute, 1983); M. Levine, “Downtown redevelopment as an urban growth strategy: A critical appraisal of the Baltimore renaissance“, Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1987, pp. 103-123.
[3]Briffault, The Most Popular Tool, pp. 66-67.
[4] Mossberger, op. cit. pp. 73-78.
Ron W. Coan 