A Phoenix in the Ashes by John Hull Mollenkopf

Author:John Hull Mollenkopf [Mollenkopf, John Hull]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Sociology, Urban
ISBN: 9780691228204
Google: QOgSEAAAQBAJ
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Published: 2021-04-13T05:35:43+00:00

Conclusion: Uniting Supporters while Dividing Opponents

From the perspective of consolidating a governing coalition, it can be said that the Koch administration used its fiscal policy, its capital budget, and its off-budget regulatory powers to forge an alliance with private market interests by promoting investment in corporate office construction. It used its ability to increase city employment, wages, and funding for OTPS contracts to contain and coopt two important public sector producer interests, public employee unions and community based service organizations. By promoting real estate developments desired by elected officials tied to the regular Democratic county organizations and giving them influence over the hiring of personnel and award of contracts, the Koch administration forged alliances with these organizations as well.

On the surface, the New York City case would appear to illustrate Peterson’s contention that cities have a unitary interest in promoting private investment and curtailing redistributive spending. In fact, however, New York City runs counter to his model in three respects. First, the politics of development in New York City ultimately proved to be highly divisive.75 Not only did the postindustrial transformation generate broad racial and class tensions, but specific development projects created acute local conflicts. Second, while New York City spent a declining share of its budget on transfer payments to the poor, it rapidly increased spending on those who provided services to the poor (whether as public employees or as contractors). Between 1983 and 1989, the city budget grew as rapidly in absolute terms and relative to private value added as it did in the late 1960s. The lessons that Peterson and structuralist scholars on the left thought that the private marketplace had taught the New York City political system in the fiscal crisis were certainly short lived.76 Finally, city officials pursued the interests of private developers not because business leaders forced them to, or because city officials wanted property tax revenues to grow, but because this course of action generated necessary political resources. In sum, political considerations had a far greater impact on the actions of the Koch coalition than any supposed contextual imperative to promote private investment or avoid redistribu-tive spending.

In the short term, the components of Mayor Koch’s strategy for achieving electoral and governing majorities were mutually reinforcing. The vigorous promotion of private investment brought unified support from business interests, especially developers and their allies, who contributed large amounts to the mayor’s campaigns and solidified elite public opinion behind him. Not until his third term did these policies begin to create opposition, as the negative consequences of the building boom for the quality of neighborhood life and the housing market became increasingly evident. Mayor Koch then adopted symbolic measures designed to mitigate these trends. Though opposition grew to be widespread, it remained sporadic and fragmented across the city’s many neighborhoods. His ambitious ten-year, $5.2 billion housing initiative provided many of these erstwhile opponents an incentive to work with him.

Similarly, his budgetary policies did not create conflicts with his business constituents in the first half of his administration.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.