WSJ: The Migrant Crisis and the Urban Death Spiral

Cities are organic entities. They have life cycles. They can thrive and grow or suffer and shrink. As secretary of housing and urban development, I learned this firsthand. Detroit wasn’t always the Detroit of today. San Francisco today is different from San Francisco 10 years ago. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago aren’t what they were 20 years ago. It’s time we opened our eyes to reality. Many cities are going backward.

We are experiencing an unrecognized urban crisis as cities grapple with the post Covid realities. Cities were created primarily as locations for employment. Post-Covid remote work, Zoom meetings, abbreviated work weeks and increased mobility change the basic urban equation. Fewer people need to be in the city to work and during COVID many adopted new lifestyles and locations. We still aren’t getting people into the office five days a week and may never again. That drop in population ripples across the urban economy, affecting real estate, restaurants, retail and more, costing sales, income and property tax revenue.

Rising homelessness, crime and high taxes make cities even less inviting – even unsustainable.

The tipping point for some cities may be the migrant crisis. As an example, New York’s Mayor Eric Adams announced a massive budget deficit caused largely by an estimated $10 billion migrant cost. The deficit requires a reduction in city services, even police and sanitation. This at a time when the No. 1 issue is crime and quality of life. It’s a death spiral.

It is an absurd development that cities across the country are now being made to shoulder the operational burden and financial cost of managing the migrant population. There is no legal, moral or practical explanation. Congress writes the immigration laws and the federal executive branch sets policy. It has created this crisis. To ignore the consequences of their actions is a total abrogation of Washington’s responsibility.As a starting point, the federal government should be managing the new asylum seekers on a national level, locating them in states to serve local needs as well as the migrants. Currently they are located on an ad hoc basis – or worse, moved as political pawns by border state governors.

The federal government should allocate the migrant population equitably and intelligently by state. Migrants can be an asset to this country, providing a low wage workforce many businesses need. Smaller and depopulated cities could use new residents.

Finally, the federal government must pay the cost of migrant care. To the extent the feds are delinquent, states must bear the financial cost. The last level of government responsible for the cost should be local government. Forcing cities to pay for a migrant crisis which they have no business managing in the first place is malpractice. Cities are already struggling and in crisis.

Handing the ball to cities is also short sighted. Cities are the economic engines for their metropolitan region. New York City is the golden goose for New York State.

Historically, democratic federal administrations understood this and pursued “urban agendas." What happened? We are effectively abandoning cities at a time when they need real help.

Cities change. At this rate the only way they can go is down. And, as cities go, so goes the country.”