Panel identifies reasons behind exodus from city

Panelists focused on rising incomes, little new housing and a change in the labor force as explanations. Introducing "a metropolitan problem" to an audience of more than 40 people, City and Regional Planning Professor John Keene began a panel discussion in Meyerson Hall Wednesday on "why people are leaving the city." As part of a year-long series presented by the City and Regional Planning Department and the Graduate School of Fine Arts, the discussion focused on the decline of cities like Philadelphia and consequent affects on urban demography. Sociology Professor and Vice Provost for Graduate Education Janice Madden speculated on the reasons for the mass migration out of cities -- reasons she believes have not "changed in the last 40 years." "As American households get more income? [they] chose to spend that income by purchasing more space, purchasing less-dense housing," Madden said. She added that some of the reasons for urban population decline include income increases, a lack of new housing and substantial influx of international migrants and a change in the labor force -- from one- to two-income families. "This accounts for the growth in suburban population? and more importantly, in suburban employment, " she said. Real Estate and Finance Professor Susan Wachter also focused on the movement of people out of cities, but -- unlike Madden -- stressed that "people are not moving out of Philadelphia? in fact, in terms of migration flows, we are very 'good' at retaining families." Using charts showing migration flow data from recent years, Wachter elaborated on her theories -- including an observation that the number of people moving out of the city is "not really the problem? really, where we do poorly is in attracting newcomers." And speaking on the systematic growth of "poverty pockets," Wachter explained the "two vicious cycles" responsible for urban decline -- households getting poorer over time and the concentration of poverty-stricken urban areas which lead to "worse life chances." "We need to rethink public housing," Wachter said, using statistics on abandoned housing and vacant land in Philadelphia to reinforce her argument. Sociology Professor Elijah Anderson offered his ethnographic perspective on the discussion, moving away from the purely statistical reasons for urban decline. "Many of these inner-city people are not adjusting effectively to the new economic reality," Anderson claimed. Blaming the cuts in welfare and other social programs for leaving low-income people "desperate," "alienated" and "bereft of hope," Anderson explained the reasons for crime increases and subsequent declines in urban population. Finance and Economics Professor Robert Inman focused his comments on the "allocation of the fiscal pie." When people look to buy a house, "they're paying for? good schools, low crime rates and low taxes," Inman explained. Citing high city taxes, expensive schools and high crime rates as unattractive to the middle class, Inman said these "no-brainer" reasons have caused many people to move to the suburbs. The next installment of the "Reversal of Fortunes" panel discussions will be held March 19 on the topic of "reinventing government."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.