Urban Issues? No Comment

14 December 2007 - 1:00pm

With all the presidential debates going on this election season, not once have urban issues come up.

Sponsored Advertisement
Advertise on Planetizen

"The candidates have now held 25 or so debates without talking about urban issues."

"Someone ought to alert the Guinness people. For sidestepping matters of direct concern to more than 80 percent of the population — people living in metropolitan areas — this has to be some kind of record."

"The grievance is hardly new. But it is glaring this time around because of the large number of candidates who you’d think would have cities and their suburbs high in their minds. Look at them: former mayors of New York City and Cleveland, a senator from New York, a former community organizer out of Chicago."

"Sure, they have discussed terrorism, health care, the economy, immigration and other matters that affect cities as much as the rest of the country. But what about basic urban and suburban concerns like housing, transportation, crime, education, Medicaid costs, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure?"

Source: The New York Times, December 14, 2007

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Because of Federalism

They're running for the Presidency... which is obviously a Federal Office. The U.S. is based on the principle of self government. Most cities would not want the President to be sticking his or her nose in their day to day business. City matters should be handled at city level, then for issues encompassing a larger area, county level and then state level for major concerns that might concern the state overall. Of course the overall health of the nation contributes to locales but pandering to every detail and issue that affects our cities is not what the presidency is all about.

Lots of funding comes from

Lots of funding comes from feds...