But, as a growing movement of Great Lakes cities set in motion aggressive plans to make their industrial waterfronts cleaner, greener, and more accessible, the pressing question for Cleveland is whether the city can afford NOT to move the busy transportation hub.
Because right now it's blocking the city's ability to fully leverage one of its greatest and most unique assets: Lake Erie.
The broader context that Cleveland now operates in is best described as nothing less than a waterfront revolution. Across America, cities are redeveloping lake- and river-fronts to boost the quality of life, attract new residents and businesses, and compete in the 21st century.
Detroit recently opened the first phase of its ambitious riverfront boardwalk.
And it's no secret what's happening to the Lake Michigan waterfront in Chicago, the most popular and competitive urban metropolis in the Midwest.
Cleveland has a visionary lakefront revitalization plan, too. But the plan for storefronts and condos likely will struggle to takeoff if 380 acres of waterfront property remain dedicated to runways and airplanes. Along with landfills, highways, and nuclear reactors, airports tend not to be ideal and inviting neighbors.
With the economies to the east and west motoring right along, Michigan tends to feel like the lone soldier in the U.S. fighting against the wave of job losses, factory closings, and other wrenching trends linked to deindustrialization.
But Stephen Forrest, one of the state's more accomplished entrepreneurs, says it's in the country's best interest for national leaders to understand and respond effectively to the economic transition underway in America's Heartland.
“Michigan’s problem is not local," Dr. Forrest said in a recent presentation to a group of venture capitalists in Holland, MI. "It’s not even a regional problem. It’s a national problem. The federal government needs to understand the importance of this region to the entire country.”
Without an immediate "all hands on deck" approach to accelerate the transition, generate new jobs, and reverse the decline, “Michigan could become a millstone around the nation’s neck," according to Dr. Forrest. The U.S., he said, simply cannot compete globaly if it writes off the 2/3 of its population which exists in the center of the country and says we can do it all on the coasts.
“Michigan is the leading indicator of large regional trends," said Dr. Forrest, who serves as vice president of research at the University of Michigan. "The reason we’re getting pummeled by this economic change is simply because we’re so invested in and been so successful in the past at manufacturing."
"So it’s natural that we would be hit the hardest the earliest," Forrest continued. "But it’s coming all around us. We know that. Ohio is the next one down. Indian is having trouble. So if we fix Michigan we actually fix the whole region. And if we fix the region we fix the U.S.”
Fuel cells. Energy efficient light bulbs. Waterless urinals. Recycled construction materials. Smart chemicals. Water filtration and desalination equipment.
Lauren Bigelow says so-called clean technologies just may be the biggest jobs and wealth generation opportunity of the 21st century.
As the director of programs for the Cleantech Network, an organization working to build the market for new technologies and services that simultaneously help sustain the planet and turn profits, Ms. Bigelow is watching investors plow a ton of money into the cleantech industry.
In fact, Ms. Bigelow says, clean tech is now the world's 3rd largest venture capital category, receiving 11 percent of global VC.
What does that mean in real dollars? About $8.5 billion in North American investment in energy innovation, waste reduction, and other sectors since 2003. The U.S. market has grown 253 percent since 2001 compared to 67 percent for electronics, 53 percent for medical devices, and 29 percent for biotech. Public offerings and mergers and acquisitions are brisk business too.
Despite infantile public policies to help advance the industry, the American Midwest ranks 6th in a 2006 listing of the Top Ten Cleantech Regions with $293 million in economic activity. The West Coast led the way with $1.9 billion followed by the Northeastern U.S. ($777 million) and Eastern China ($420 million).
"We're seeing a lot of comfort right now with VC investment in clean technologies," Ms. Bigelow says, "particulary in the energy generation sector."
If you're a resident of Michigan, or any Great Lakes state for that matter, you gotta be amped that the Michigan Republican Party recently announced it will sponsor a debate for their party's presidential candidates on October 9 in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn. These guys have basically ignored the plight of Middle America for years. Now they're coming to ground zero of the Rust Belt to help decide who's best suited to lead the nation into the Digital Age.
The debate, cosponsored by the Wall Street Journal and CNBC, represents a tremendous opportunity for state residents and civic leaders from around the region to probe which candidate is best prepared to respond to the historic economic, technological, environmental, social, and political trends reshaping America's Heartland.
As state party chairman Saul Anuzis puts it in his YouTube video announcing the news, "Michigan is going to be the center of attention for the next couple of months."
The question is what are these guys going to talk about? What issues will party leaders choose to elevate to national attention? Will the forum come off as a thoughtful discussion about what action the Upper Midwest really needs to take to get its groove back in the modern era? Or a superficial conversation about how Michigan can prosper again if we just fix NAFTA?
Will the candidates bring fresh ideas for leveraging globally unique regional assets like unmatched research universities and Great Lakes to reverse decades of decline?
Or will they brownnose the party loyalists with the increasingly tired and empty rhetoric about tax cuts and 9/11?
Will they seize on the power of inclusiveness and openness to new people and ideas as a way to rekindle a dormant entrepreneurial spirit and boost competitiveness in a global economy?
Or will the debate be two hours of pandering to gay haters, abortion foes, and militant gun rights advocates?
Will they talk about innovative strategies to unite business, academia, philanthropy, and government in a common movement to modernize impotent cities, rebuild community, and pursue a 21st century development strategy for the new economy?
Or will they target the gatekeepers for the obsolete economic development ideas of the 20th century and offer ill-fated ways to rescue the old economy?
"This debate on economic issues will give Republican presidential candidates a chance to talk about the issue that affects Michigan families most - jobs," Mr. Anuzis writes. "The automotive industry and manufacturing helped create the Middle Class, and this debate will allow voters to hear how the next president of the United States will deal effectively with the one of the most important sectors of our national economy."
There's no denying or even minimizing the significance of the role manufacturing played in regional - and national - growth, prosperity, and security over the past century. Even after years of factory closings and job losses, industry remains a crucial and evolving dimension of the economy. Initiatives to strengthen the sector deserve rigorous debate.
But they shouldn't dominate and headline. This is 2007. And a growing number of the state's brightest minds agree that manufacturing is no longer driving economic growth. The marketplace is undergoing an intense transition away from heavy and dirty industry toward a knowledge economy where design, alternative energy, info tech, and life sciences represent the new frontiers of opportunity. That is where the growth is happening. And that is what Michigan and its bordering swing states must figure out.
Overall, the greater Great Lakes region of the U.S. has yet to articulate a coherent and comprehensive vision and strategy to accelerate the transition to the knowledge economy. That's where leadership is needed. And that's why the GOP debate in metro Detroit later this fall will help reveal which, if any, of the Republicans are best prepared to strenghten Michigan and, by extension, America.
Emboldened by his city's remarkably swift progress toward satisfying 20 percent of its municipal power demand with clean renewable energy sources, Mayor George Heartwell today publicly wondered why the City of Grand Rapids shouldn't pursue a strategy to completely end its dependence on coal and other irreplaceable fuel sources in an effort to advance more sustainable development, spur new jobs, and modernize the local economy for the 21st century.
"Why shouldn't the [green energy] goal for the second largest city in the State of Michigan be 100 percent," Mayor Heartwell told more than 300 attendees at a wind power convention on the campus of Michigan State University. "If municipal government demands increasing levels of renewable power for the sake of all our citizens, then won't residential consumers and industry follow. And won't that demand drive both public policy and innovation."
But Mr. Larson was not immediately aware of any elected official or U.S. state setting the bar so high in the push to promote green energy. Several states have enacted or are considering policies that call for 15, 20, or maybe 25 percent green power generation.
He also said Mayor Heartwell's bold stance ultimately could help elevate popular support for energy innovation and help move a more modern energy policy forward in both Michigan and Washington, D.C., where a limited number of members from the Michigan delegation support a proposal to increase energy efficiency and innovation standards.
Efforts to promote energy policy innovation in Michigan continue to progress slower than a Beverly Hillbillies brainstorming session, too. Critics argue, among other things, that mandates to promote green power will drive up electricity costs for consumers, weaken the power grid, and kill jobs.
But a growing number of proponents contend that energy innovation is essential to the economic, environmental, and well-being of cities, states, and the nation as a whole. Mayor Heartwell has consistenly stood on the cutting edge of this emerging movement.
In his 2005 State of the City Address, Mayor Heartwell announced his administration would begin to wean Grand Rapids off dirty, nonrenewable fuel sources like coal and begin to demand and purchase energy from landfills, wind mills, and other alternatives. By 2008, the mayor promised, 20 percent of the city's energy would come from green power.
"We will meet this goal almost one year ahead of schedule," Mayor Heartwell said today.
Hence the new and much more ambitious goal of 100 percent green power. Mayor Heartwell said little about how he intends to achieve the goal. He also stopped short of putting a timeframe on when he'd like to meet the new challenge.
But he made it clear that he believes the very pursuit of the goal will ultimately help his city and state protect the environment, generate high tech jobs in a knowledge economy, and spur new wealth in the modern era.
"The greatest fortunes that America has ever known were made in energy," the mayor said, reminding the crowd of industrialist John D. Rockefeller, who revolutionized the pertroleum business. "The geniuses who invent the formulas to more efficiently capture the energy of the wind, the water, and the sunlight will not only provide enormous good for the world. They will be rewarded handsomely for having done it."
Barack Obama, locked in a fierce competition to claim the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, today dispatched an environmental advisor to share with advocates for America's Great Lakes how deeply the senator supports protecting and restoring one of the nation's most important freshwater ecosystems.
By doing so, Obama became the first presidential candidate on either side of the aisle to directly address the environmental and economic importance of sustaining Great Lakes waterways. All of the candidates were invited to attend the Third Annual Great Lakes Restoration conference in Chicago. Organizers, in fact, scheduled time for an in-depth panel discussion.
But the campaigns are focused intensely these days on early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not so much on the 78 of 270 electoral votes - including key battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio - in the greater Great Lakes region. So, for twenty minutes at least, Senator Obama had the Great Lakes stage all to himself.
But even the man from Illinois was a no show. Deborah Shore served as his representative. She detailed the senator's impeccable record on the environment. How he introduced legislation to reduce mercury pollution. How he called for hearings into a plan by British Petroleum to increase pollution in Lake Michigan. How he promotes energy innovation and supports more modern fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.
Ms. Shore explained to the 250 plus business leaders, activists, and local officials gathered for the event that Sen. Obama, who hails from Chicago, lives just minutes from the Lake Michigan shore. She reminded folks how the senator worked in bipartisan fashion to slow the introduction of exotic species into the Great Lakes and how, "as president, Barack Obama will push for passage of the Great Lakes [restoration act]."
Indeed, Sen. Obama is one of only two presidential candidates signed on in support of the federal legislation to launch a $26 billion cleanup of Great Lakes waterways. But when pressed to help elevate Great Lakes issues to the national stage, and back the talk with real money, the Obama campaign seemed surprisingly unsure.
"Is the Senator going to mention Great Lakes restoration specifically when he talks about the environment, particularly in presidential debates?" asked Grenetta Thomassey, policy director for Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council.
"I can't say for sure. But we will relay the interest of this group and so many others that he do so," said Ms. Shore, a commissioner of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District in Chicago.
"Fast forward one year," said Andy Buchsbaum, director of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office. "President Obama has been able to shepherd through the Great Lakes [restoration act], and now it's time for him to unroll his budget. Will he, in his budget, commit to funding the act fully."
"I don’t know," Ms. Shore said. "But let's see if we can get there."
"We have to make sure that every presidential candidate that comes through the region takes a position on Great Lakes restoration," said Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. "And not just a rhetorical position. George Bush talked about Great Lakes restoration. But he never really showed us the money."
"We need to see action," Quinn added. "We need to see strong support for real investment in our Great Lakes."
The report also projects a short-term economic benefit of as much as an additional $50 billion.
The report, scheduled to be released today, represents the most thorough and credible analysis yet on the economic advantages that could accrue to Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and other Great Lakes states now struggling to transition from the Industrial Era to the Digital Age.
The report signals a momentus shift in strategy for the public campaign to fully fund the proposed Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. Until now, proponents of the restoration strategy, which was officially released in December 2005, framed the urgent need for Great Lakes restoration as primarily an environmental issue. Investing in restoration, they said, is urgently needed to stop outdated sewers from polluting waterways, prevent invasive species from ruining the fishery, and cleanup toxic contamination in harbors and rivers.
Those issues still stand. But the federal legislation to implement the public works project continues to languish in Congress.
With the release of this new report campaign organizers are broadening the restoration debate from a one-dimensional environmental program to include a compelling economic angle. Specifically, the report reveals that fully funding the restoration will:
Leverage $6.5-$11.5 billion in increaesed recreation spending as cleaner waterways make swimming, fishing, and other tourism activities more inviting.
Raise coastal property values $12-$19 billion as rehabbed waterfronts become more attractive to private investors.
Slash municipal costs by $50 to $125 million as reduced erosion and sedimentation makes water treatment less expensive.
Generate "unquantifiable but significant economic activity" by improving the regional quality of life and making the region more attractive to new high tech businesses and top-flight talent.
"For the past half century," the report states, "the Great Lakes region has struggled to find its niche in a changing global economy. The Great Lakes themselves can be a key asset in this process - serving as a platform for sustainable economic growth, a crucible for freshwater protection and technology development, and the foundation for this region to thrive anew as a magnet for skilled workers."
"Federal, state, local, and tribal leaders must recognize that the benefits of renewal exceed the costs and work together to commit the resources needed to restore the lakes," the report concludes.
Perhaps the most important feature of the Governor's plan would require utilities to generate 25 percent of Ohio's electricity from "advanced energy" sources by 2025. Advanced energy sources presumably would include wind, grass, and solar as well as so-called clean coal and nuclear.
Regardless, twenty four states in the Union - including Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York - already have set similiar goals.
In his announcement, the governor took direct aim at critics who say promoting alternative energy sources in the Midwest will kill jobs, raise electrical rates, and slow economic growth. Here are excerpts from his remarks:
"Our energy policy is not simply a matter of what we stand to lose. It is a matter of what we stand to gain – jobs. Energy can be a catalyst for new jobs, bringing forth a new day, a new economy, a new Ohio.
An economic analysis by the Apollo Alliance found that an expanded use of renewable energy would provide Ohio more than 20,000 new manufacturing jobs building the products necessary to harvest the energy of the wind, sun, water and other renewable resources. And that represents only a fraction of the potential jobs to be gained in the research and operation of not only renewable but other advanced energy options.
Advanced energy offers the promise of high paying jobs – jobs that would take advantage of Ohio’s strengths in manufacturing, our location, and our workforce. And all the while we will help power our economy with cleaner fuels and take control of our energy destiny.We now face a choice.
We can embrace unchecked monopolies presented under the guise of a deregulated marketplace, a false marketplace that would stifle our economy, and leave to chance the development of innovation.
Or we can embrace a carefully crafted hybrid approach that recognizes how we generate, distribute, and price electricity affects every one of us every day, and acknowledges that maintaining an adequate supply of electricity is a fundamental responsibility of our state government.
Cynics might say that our best days are behind us. But they are wrong. Energy can be the key to our economic renaissance."
But it's Mayor Cameron Priebe's reasoned perspective on the growing interest in wind power that's really worth taking away from this story, because it reveals what it will take to push civic support for alternative energy over the top.
"This isn't a movement yet," he told the Detroit News.
At the same time, advocates for green power argue exactly the opposite. Investing in wind, solar, and other alternatives, they say, will generate jobs, diversify the power grid and the economy, and boost competitiveness in the global economy.
To put it simply, the movement for green power has yet to reach a tipping point. The old way of thinking about the state's long-term energy future is preferred to embracing innovation, unleashing entrepreneurialism, and taking risk.
The mayor of Michigan's second largest city is calling on the Republican presidential candidates to take a stand on a comprehensive plan to revitalize the greater Great Lakes region of the United States.
In a 33-second video question submitted for the CNN/You Tube Republican debate, Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell says investing in a proposed strategy to clean up the globally unique waters of the Great Lakes is much more than an environmental issue. He says the move is both a path to, and a requirement for, restoring economic prosperity for the American Midwest in the 21st century.
A major public works project to rehab the Great Lakes was formally introduced in December 2005. The bipartisan proposal recommends, among other things, cleaning up toxic contamination in rivers and harbors, reclaiming critical natural habitats, and modernizing outdated sewer infrastructure. It would also put thousands of contractors, consultants, engineers, scientists, and other highly skilled professional to work in a region where 'jobs' and 'competitiveness' are top priorities.
But the $20 billion proposal continues to languish in Congress because lawmakers view it as a big, expensive, one dimensional environmental project....if they view it at all. And presidential candidates, too, have yet to recognize the strategic value of the issue, even as Great Lakes voters hunger for bold ideas to speed up a wrenching economic transition.
Republican candidates who seize on the Great Lakes restoration issue would likely strengthen their position among the party base, and earn favor with independent voters, particularly in key swing states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan, where Mayor Heartwell's city sits at the epicenter of the state's fiscal and moral conservative base.
Polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Republican voters view the Great Lakes as a vital economic and environmental asset. But those citizens also worry the waterways are in poor condition and vulnerable to continued degradation. That's why surveys also suggest conservatives support spending public dollars to modernize sewage plants, cleanup toxic hot spots, and otherwise restore and secure the health of the Great Lakes. Democrats and Independents feel much the same way.
In other words, revitalizing America's Great Lakes is a winning issue for Republicans. A strong position supporting the proposal enables presidential hopefuls to cross partisan lines, demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the challenges and opporuntities facing the Upper Midwest and, perhaps more importantly, distance themselves from the out-of-touch policies and practices of the Bush Administration.
Not surprisingly, Detroit, MI and Portland, OR find themselves on opposite ends of the spectrum in Fast Company.com's latest rankings of the top global cities.
An entirely separate study published by CEO's for Cities on Portland's innovative approach provides new insight on just how much that kind of moribound thinking costs urban residents economically, environmentally, and socially.
After two decades of extending public transit service, redirecting growth back into the central city, and promoting development that encourages biking and walking, Portland residents now drive about 20 percent fewer miles everyday when compared to commuters in other large metro areas.
The way Cortright figures it, Portlanders annually save approximately $1.1 billion by avoiding car travel, and that translates into some $800 million additional dollars spent locally rather than exported to gas and car producing states, like Michigan.
Cortright also estimates that the 2.8 billion miles Portland commuters avoid every year translates into some 100 million fewer hours traveling which, in turn, translates to an additional $1.5 billion in precious time saved.
In other words, Portland's commitment to actively advance the practice of sustainability is not only attracting new residents, modern businesses, and national honors. It's putting real dollars in real people's pockets. Meanwhile, Detroit's puzzling inability to adapt continues to draw stiff jabs.
"Last one out, shut off the manufacturing line," Fast Company declares.
The cleanup of Waukegan Harbor in Illinois would increase local property values by a projected $800 million, signal the city's transition from the waning Industrial Era to the emerging Digital Age, and set the stage for a new century of prosperity in Waukegan, where the per capita annual income is just over $17,000 and 14 percent of the population is below the poverty line.
But state and federal officials seem determined to bungle the $36 million deal, which would remove from the harbor bottom more than a quarter million cubic yards of sediment laced with PCB, a nasty little persistent pollutant that's linked to human health problems like cancer.
But designing a waterfront where people want to live, shop, and play in many ways means minimizing industry and all its related consequences to the local environmental and aestethic value. And that, apparently is something the federal government won't stand for.
As the local leaders in Waukegan strive to organize future growth around new residences and public recreational opportunities on a vibrant waterfront, the feds are, in effect, arguing for cement factories and drywall manufacturers.
To be certain, the region needs these important industries. But it's not 1950 anymore. They are no longer the highest and best use for a globally unique lakeshore.
In an bid to distinguish himself as the champion of America's Great Lakes, Illinois Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama last week called for federal hearings on the State of Indiana's recent decision to allow British Petroleum to dramatically increase the amount of pollution the company pumps into Lake Michigan.
The letter doesn't break any ground in terms of fresh thinking about the economic and environmental significance of aggressive action to protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water on the planet. But Senator Obama nonetheless becomes the first presidential candidate from either side of the political aisle to publicly address the importance of sustaining the health of the Great Lakes for future generations. It's a start.
Located 30 miles west inland from Lake Michigan, the community represents both the challenges to, and opportunities for, sustaining the Great Lakes water supply for future generations.
On one hand, Waukesha, which lies just outside the Lake Michigan Basin, symbolizes all that is wrong with the current water use philosophy in the Midwest. Shortsighted land use planning and suburban sprawl prompts a building boom of new homes, strip malls, and big-box stores in what was previously a rural landscape. The number of new residents and businesses outpaces the availability of local water supplies. So the town reflexively turn to bigger pipes, larger pumps, and more plentiful water sources to meet growing demand.
Waukesha's ongoing campaign to tap Lake Michigan's flush reserves has infuriated environmentalists and burdened the region's elected officials for years now.
On the other hand, Waukesha also has begun to reveal a different, much more astute identity. The community forged a water conservation strategy, something most Great Lakes cities continue to ignore. They've begun to patrol water use, adopting strategies such as lawn watering restrictions in the hot summer months. And they're taking innovative measures to encourage the local population to take an active role in reducing the community's overall water use.
The town this year will launch a contest to see which households and families can achieve the most dramatic reduction in water consumption. The grand prize is $500 and, of course, free water for a year. (If you really want people to conserve water, raise the rates.)
That's a laudable goal. But in many ways Waukesha's push to promote simple water conservation measures strengthens it's moral authority to tap the Big Lake, even as it continues to sprawl. Why should they be denied as others pump away? Whether the community ultimately is a force for good or evil in the campaign to sustain the Great Lakes remains to be seen.
But now, even as elected officials drag their feet on formalizing a modern energy strategy for Michigan, the 8th largest state in the union by population, Heritage Sustainable Energy LLC, a small renewable energy business, is set to break new ground in Michigan's infant green power industry. The firm just inked a 10-year deal to provide wind power to DTE Energy Company, which provides electricity to some 2.2 million people in southeastern Michigan.
"Heritage is very excited to move forward in partnership with DTE Energy to bring clean, renewable energy to Michigan," said Marty Lagina, president of Rock Management Group, the managing partner of Heritage Sustainable Energy.
"It is particularly gratifying that DTE Energy is purchasing renewable energy credits on its own initiative prior to Michigan legislative action on the issue. DTE Energy's decision to partner with us will get us started. We look forward to the state of Michigan taking additional action to encourage the growth of the wind energy business in our state."
The dominant political philosophy of the past two-plus decades has been that Americans are overtaxed and that slashing taxes is the key solution to the problem of the day, whatever that may be. But there is new evidence that the ideology is wearing thin. Chris Coleman, for one, is throwing that idea right out the window.
"For 11 years, we didn't increase the size of the [city tax] levy," he said. "Our metro tax rating fell from second to 75th. However, that was not a sign of fiscal prudence. Rather, it was a sign of disinvestment -- and our community is beginning to feel the consequences. We were lured by false choices ... that we could somehow maintain our quality of life without paying for it.''
Mary Gade, the Great Lakes regional administrator of the United States' Environmental Protection Agency, personally convened a special summit today in Chicago to present the suits at British Petroleum with a series of recommendations on how they can "minimize" the irresponsible environmental consequences of expanding their oil refinery on the shores of Lake Michigan in Whiting, IN.
Apparently the thought of private corporations obtaining government permission to dump millions of pounds of pollution and waste annually into Lake Michigan makes people, well, angry.
Now the feds are sponsoring high level sit downs "to begin a more practical discussion" about protecting Lake Michigan, according to Ms. Gade.
It's not entirely clear to this taxpayer why a government facing spectacular programatic shortfalls and funding deficits is spending scarce resources to hold the hand of a fabulously rich private company in an effort to help them "go beyond compliance," as Ms. Gade puts it.
Finance projects that reduce pollution from other companies that discharge into the Grand Calumet River or Lake Michigan.
Divert all or some of the refinery's wastewater to nearly municipal treatment plants.
Pay for sewer upgrades in neighboring towns to keep sewage and storm water out of Lake Michigan.
Set aside money to filter pollution that seeps into the lake. Projects could include wetlands, shoreline restoration or storm-water retention ponds.
Make additional upgrades at the refinery's water treatment plant to reduce the amount of pollution flowing into Lake Michigan.
Spend more money to dredge contaminated muck from the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal.
Join Indiana to pay for other projects that remove contaminated sediment in the Grand Calumet River.
Finding innovative ways to ensure BP bears the true cost of their operation - specifically the expensive pollution - makes sense. But let's not lose sight of the most cost effective strategy that government leaders apparently are not willing to support: prohibit industrial water pollution in the Great Lakes in the first place.
The move also demonstrates the outstanding economic benefits that accrue to companies and communities that embrace and invest in a sustainable development strategy.
That means big profits and less toxic fish to eat at the same time. And therein lies the real story that's gaining steam in America's upper Midwest. The cant-doers are becoming marginalized.
The conventional industrialists erode their credibility when they reflexively argue that minimizing pollution - and thereby accelerating the Rust Belt's transition to a cleaner, more prosperous, and healthy place to live and work -will cost too much money, force too many job cuts, and restrict economic growth.
ERCO reportedly is the largest source of mercury pollution in the state. And now they're going mercury-free. In doing so, the company further illuminates the idea that a sustainable development strategy that balances economic and environmental goals is the key to modern prosperity. Not the barrier.
From the anything-for-money file: owners of the blighted Broderick Tower in downtown Detroit covered up the humpback whales mural painted on the side of the building by globally renowned artist - and Detroit native -Robert Wyland with an advertisement for Verizon Wireless.
So, instead of an interesting and unique piece of public art that engages people in the city, Detroiters now have a 16-stories-tall picture of the "can you hear me know" guy.
Some say whales don't belong in Detroit. But, like the Spirit of Detroit and the Joe Louis fist, Wylands' Whales were on the way to becoming a signature piece of the Motor City. Now they're just another casualty of the city's ongoing struggle to execute a future-oriented revitalization strategy.
Mass rapid transit. Diversity. Historic preservation. Collaboration. Public art. These are the basic elements of prosperous cities. Yet Detroit seems to reject them at every turn.
Hunter Morrison knows how to build a city. The guy's resume is flush with national planning awards, high profile urban consulting posts, and degrees from the world's top institutions of higher learning. In other words, when Hunter Morrison says something will make a city hum, he's most likely correct.
He should know. Mr. Morrison was director of planning for the City of Cleveland for 20 years, during which time the city launched its modern day revival with a new master plan and major reinvestment projects such as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Playhouse Square Theatre District. He has worked as a private consultant in Boston and New York.
The man has taught courses at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and Cleveland State University's College of Urban Affairs. He has served as the director of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies at Youngstown State University and a senior fellow at the Urban Design Center of Northeast Ohio. And he holds a bachelors degree in city planning and political science from Yale, a masters in city planning from Harvard, and an executive masters in business from Cleveland State University.
And his call to cap I-90 is the kind of transformative thinking that could dramatically accelerate Cleveland's revival. Other American cities have dared to fundamentally rethink their major urban expressways and realized big paybacks. San Francisco, Portland, and New York - three of the nation's hottest urban hubs - all tore down highways to make way for new condos, businesses, and public spaces.
Mid-sized cities like Grand Rapids, MI have 'toyed' with the idea of turning a major elevated expressway into a sleek at-grade boulevard to reconnect historic neighborhoods to the Grand River waterfront.
Though proven successful elsewhere, these kinds of ideas remain pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams in the Midwest, where entrenched thinking and conventional transportation planners argue such dramatic changes are not possible. But clearly that's not the case. Just ask the experts.
The Democrats squared off last night in the party's latest presidential campaign debate, this one sponsored by the AFL-CIO. But just before the curtains went up, and the cameras went live, MSNBC political correspondent Chris Matthews appeared on TV and, in response to a question about free trade, presented a disturbingly realistic assessment on the state of America's heartland. It's an analysis that national politicians, for the most part, continue to ignore. Even as they stood on a stage in Solidier Field, in the City of Chicago, on the shores of the Great Lakes, not one candidate offered a comprehensive strategy to see the American Midwest get its groove back. Meanwhile, voters in crucial swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wiscosin hunger for leadership.
Here's an excerpt of Matthews remarks on the Tucker Carlson show:
CARLSON: So do you—I think what you‘re saying is [union workers] vote with their minds as well as their hearts. They are not going to award an endorsement to a guy simply because he has been with them. They want to back someone who has a shot of winning.
MATTHEWS: They want a president. It‘s simple as that. They do not want just a nominee, even. They want a president of the United States who will do labor‘s bidding, give them check card neutrality, toughen up on trade issues, get the minimum wage, give them all the issues they care about. They want it now. They have been out in the cold for too long, these guys. As it‘s been pointed out on your program for the last few minutes, labor is getting smaller. It is not getting better. They need help.
CARLSON: The trade issue is just a fascinating one to me. Bill Clinton, of course, the face of free trade and NAFTA. How is Mrs. Clinton going to navigate?
MATTHEWS: It is absolutely ironic, you‘re right. Because it was not a Republican who delivered NAFTA. It was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, in 1993 and 1994. He came through and created free-trade as a regime for American economics. It has worked for a lot of people. But, as I have said so many times, the de-industrialization of America continues year after year.
The big auto companies are in trouble. All the factory towns are dying. There are so many towns across the Rust Belt, from Buffalo out to Chicago—Go through those small towns. Nothing is left but a Blockbuster movie place and a diner. Everything else is rust. It is all across the northeast and through the Midwest. I do not know what Hillary Clinton is going to do about this. She says she‘s going to re-industrialize America.
Well, that will be the day. That‘s why you have to wonder why labor does not put up its big strong muscle and say, damn it, we want our factory jobs back. Give us the policies that will do it, and ask the Democrats to put up or shut up.
CARLSON: What does that mean? I have heard that phrase a couple of times today, re-industrialize America. Is that the idea that we are going to start making big heavy metal things again?
MATTHEWS: It means that when you graduate from high school, you can get a job at a plant, like the old Bud plant in Philadelphia, where they build big things like subway cars, or trains, or whatever. Something big you‘re right, something big that requires muscle and big industry. We do not do that anymore in this country. We don‘t even have cigar plants anymore.
CARLSON: I wish we did do that. I am sad that we do not do that. But the idea that we are going to do that any time soon is ridiculous. Isn‘t it?
MATTHEWS: It is under current policy, and it certainly is given world competition. The advantage we have in free trade is you and I can go to a store, and we can choose clothes from everywhere in the world, incredibly attractive clothing, khakis, shirts, socks, everything. You can pick out exactly what you want, the size you want and walk out of the store with it already fitted. That‘s because of free trade.
But the cost is down in North Carolina and South Carolina, those textile industries are not in good shape. That‘s the difference. Some people are winning; some people are losing. The winners have more clout than the losers. That‘s why we‘re having free trade as a regime in this country. Isn‘t that the case?
The bridge collapse in Minneapolis is not an isolated incident. It's yet another sign of an ongoing pattern of failure to maintain the basic physical structures on which Americans increasingly depend. Consider what's happened around the Great Lakes recently:
Good thing the greater Great Lakes region has barely seen a spit of rain this summer or we could tick off a long list of beach closings due to sewer failures.
Heck, even the "new stuff" is showing its age, like the public art statue on the Muskegon, MI waterfront pictured above.
Admittedly, the topic of infrastructure is about as exciting as a root canal. But, as Minneapolis reminds us, human life depends on it. So does a strong economy and a clean environment. Well-maintained roads, dams, electric grids, sewer and water lines, and other public works play an increasingly important role in America's civic stature.
Leadership requires more than a flyover after the levees break or a tour of the rubble as rescue workers drag cars out of the river. What's needed is a serious and long-lasting strategy to ramp up investment in the nation's aging infrastructure. 'The Big Fix' must no longer be ignored.
In a striking setback for the twin goals of boosting the competitiveness of America's Rust Belt economy and strengthening protections for the nation's Great Lakes, Bush Administration officials just announced the president will veto a proposal that would invest tens of millions of federal dollars to, among other things, modernize the mega region's crumbling sewer systems, cleanup decades of industrial pollution, and accelerate waterfront revitalization efforts in moribound cities such as Detroit.
But that was before the Bush Administration said the $21 billion plan is too expensive. This afternoon the mood is taking a turn. The bill includes an unprecedented $5.5 billion in federal funding for ecological restoration projects in coastal Louisiana, the Everglades, and the Great Lakes, according to the National Audubon Society.
"We are deeply disappointed with the President’s intention to veto this important restoration bill," said Tony Iallonardo, communications director at Audubon. "Funding for these projects is vital and long overdue. We urge the President to reconsider. In the event of a veto, we urge a Congressional override to bring five years of hard fought deliberations to a successful conclusion."
Here's a copy of the letter the administration sent earlier today to Wisconsin Representative James Oberstar, chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
With estimates as high as $1 billion, civic leaders in Cleveland argue the city can't afford to shut down Burke Lakefront Airport, which sits on the southern shore of Lake Erie, and redirect plane traffic to the region's existing airports. (There's reportedly three in the immediate area.)
