Because of a rather unusual cosmic occurence (okay, our neighbors are on vacation), Phillyist was able to procure a copy of Sunday's New York Times to read over breakfast yesterday. Now, we don't necessarily live and breathe the Times the way many people we know do, but this morning's edition had a story that is actually worth our attention.
The article is titled "Cities Shed Middle Class, and Are Richer and Poorer for It," and the premise of the story is, shockingly, exactly what the headline says. Citing a recent Brookings Institution study that came from here in Philadelphia -- the study's author, Joseph Gyourko, is a professor of real estate and finance at Penn's Wharton School -- the article talks about how cities have gained rich residents and poor residents in recent years but have lost their middle classes.
For example, whereas middle-income families made up 28 percent of families in the 100 largest metropolitan areas in America in 1970, that number fell to 22 percent in 2000. The problem is even more pronounced now in New York, where middle-income families were only 16 percent of the population in 2000 compared to 41 percent at low-income and 43 percent at high-income levels. In San Francisco, one of the most gentrified cities in the country (by the admission of a native San Franciscan who is a close friend of Phillyist), the proportion of residents making $100,000 per year rose from 7 percent in 1970 to 30 percent in 2000.
Philadelphia wasn't included in the Times story, though. And while you might dismiss this as another example of New York's disdain for our city, you might also ask why you should care. The answer is that Philadelphia is one of the few cities left that still has a sizeable middle-class population. But as the city's economic development trends continue, with expansion sure to move past Brewerytown and Northern Liberties to the north and past Washington Avenue to the south, things might start to change.
And as all this happens, we'll have a mayoral election next fall that will tell us everything about what people in this city think about all of this change. Most of the votes in Philadelphia can be found in those middle-class and working-class neighborhoods, and the politicians have usually acted accordingly. Those voters and politicians are also likely to act in their own interest, and not being priced out of a house or a neighborhood is a clear act of self-interest. If economic development brings new residents, that means new voters who might have different priorities than the previous residents.
So on one side of the mayor's race, you have Michael Nutter, who declared his candidacy on Saturday and has led the way on reforms such as the ethics bill and the smoking ban. That stance has made him pretty popular in neighborhoods whose residents want Philadelphia to move in what they see as a more progressive direction than it has in the past.
Other possible candidates for Mayor include Congressman Chakka Fattah and union boss John Dougherty, both of whom have huge -- but very different -- constituent bases, and seemingly different sets of priorities when it comes to local politics. So there's a good chance that a race between Nutter, Fattah, and Dougherty would provide a true contrast between men with very different visions of Philadelphia.
It would also say a lot about the size and power of Philadelphia's middle class, and what the size of that middle class will be in the years to come.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Post a comment (Comment Policy)