A Region Divided: The State of Growth in Greater Washington, D.C.

Transcript

Bruce Katz: We're going to start. Good morning, everyone. I think we're going to start. My name is Bruce Katz, and I want to welcome you to Brookings. I think the most important thing about today is that we're inside, and hopefully we'll keep the air conditioning high so we all feel comfortable.

I'm the director of the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy at Brookings. And the mission of the center is fairly straightforward. It's to understand the key demographic and market trends affecting both cities and suburbs in America today; to identify the most promising strategies for growing healthy cities in strong regions; to develop a new urban and metropolitan agenda that is based on empirical evidence and best practices, and to do all this through a network of scholars and practitioners here and around the country.

About a year ago, we decided to bring this work home and gain a better understanding of our own region. The D.C. region has grown markedly in the past decades. We are now home to about 4.3 million people living in 10 local jurisdictions located in three states. Almost overnight, we have become one of the centers of the new economy, nationally and globally.

Yet our remarkable growth has not come without cost. The region as a whole is now the second most congested area in the country. Only L.A. is more clogged. Issues like traffic congestion and school overcrowding and loss of open space and diminished air quality dominate the local news. And a portion of our region does not appear to be benefiting from all this rapid change.

These issues are prompting a serious conversation among corporate, civic, community and political leaders about how this region should grow and what this region should look like 10, 20, even 50 years from now.

To help inform this discussion, we decided it would be helpful to step back, take a breath and get a larger picture of how we are growing in the 1990s--to basically get and interpret the facts rather than the anecdotes. We turned to three researchers and their colleagues to help us in this regard.

First we asked Myron Orfield, who you will hear from this morning, a Minnesota state representative, to map the larger market and demographic trends affecting this region. Myron has done similar mapping exercises for some 22 metropolitan areas around the country, and his findings about the polarizing patterns of growth and particularly the signs of decline in our older suburbs are changing national, state and regional perceptions about trends and policies in politics.

Secondly, we asked Marge Turner and Mark Rubin at the Urban Institute to give us a better sense of how our economy is decentralizing in the 1990s.

And finally, we asked Phil Dearborn and George Grier from the Greater Washington Research Center to give us an up-to- date sense of the demographic and social trends--immigration, poverty, race--in our area.

Based on this research, the Urban Center has produced a report distilling the state of the Washington, D.C. region. And I hope all of you have a copy of that report this morning. The purpose of this forum today is really quite simple. We are here to present our findings about trends and our conclusions about next steps. And we are here to discuss the report, react to it and see whether there is consensus and potentially even disagreement.

George Bernard Shaw once said that "The sign of a truly educated person is to be deeply moved by statistics." [Laughter] I'm not sure I would have defined it that way, but I hope that by the end of my presentation and Myron's presentation that you will agree that he was right.

Let me give you a snapshot of this report, and then outline the schedule for the next half-day. Our report makes three major findings. First, Washington is a region divided by class, by race, by job growth and by opportunity. The divide is not what most people think, between our core city and the suburbs; rather, the divide is between the Eastern and Western portions of this region. It runs right through local jurisdictions, as you can see on this map, splitting the region essentially in half. These halves of the region, one benefiting from the strong economy, one falling behind, are fundamentally connected, and what happens in the east, as I will discuss, fundamentally affects what happens and how growth occurs in the west.

Second, this region has the resources and the general environment to bridge the divide. The region has enormous traction in the new economy. The presence of the federal government has a profound impact on our economy. The poverty rate here and the incidence of concentrated poverty are fairly low, compared to other regions and other cities. And despite crossing three states, the region has only 10 major local jurisdictions, and has little of the excessive fragmentation found in other places.

Finally, to bridge the divide, we need to grow smarter. We need better, more refined information about the state of our region. We need to make the linkages between disparate sets of issues: congestion and affordable housing, loss of open space and the concentration of poverty. These issues seem separate, but they are really flip sides of the same coin.

Finally, we need to reach across jurisdictions and the difficult class and racial divisions and force solutions that reflect our interdependence and the common agendas that we hold but often don't recognize.

Let me elaborate on each of these findings.

First, the Washington, D.C. region is a region divided by race, by income, by jobs and opportunities. The divide is between the eastern and western portions of the region. On the eastern side of the divide--eastern district of Columbia, inner Prince George's, parts of Arlington, parts of Montgomery, parts of Alexandria--these are the places that bear the burden of poverty, of lower-income working families and social distress. These are the places where job growth is anemic, where African-American and Latino families mostly live, where a substantial portion of the kids in the schools are from low-income families, and where the bulk of low-income housing is located.

On the western side of the divide--most of Fairfax and Loudoun for sure, but also North Arlington, Northwest Washington, D.C., portions of inner Montgomery--this is where prosperity lies. This is where job growth is explosive, where school poverty is virtually non-existent, where families who earn more than $50,000 predominantly reside.

The divide is not about the city versus the suburbs. It runs right through local jurisdictions: the District, Prince George's, Arlington, Montgomery--they all have pockets of distress, and they all have pockets of great affluence. The divide defines our interdependence of the region. What happens on the east fundamentally affects what happens on the west. The eastern side of the region generally pushes growth towards the western part.

And the divide also masks the connections between the challenges facing the east and those facing the west. Failing schools in the eastern part of the district, lack of investment, socialized relations--these are all directly related to the challenges on the western side of the region: congestion, loss of open space, school overcrowding. Again, these challenges are opposite sides--flip sides of the same coin.

Let me give you some hard facts about the divide. On income. Families who earn more than $50,000 tend to live on the western side of the region. Seventy-one percent of the households in Fairfax fit into this category. The percentage for Montgomery is 66 percent; for Loudoun County, it's 61 percent. By contrast, the District of Columbia has just over 30 percent of its households earning more than $50,000. Arlington, Frederick, Prince George's and Alexandria hover around 45 percent earning more than $50,000.

On race. In 1996, the District of Columbia and Prince George's had 70 percent of the region's black population, 57 percent of the region's non-white population, but only 32 percent of the region's total population. As a region, however, we are growing more diverse. Montgomery's minority population grew by 36 percent during the 1990s, and over 40 percent of Alexandria is now minorities, up from 31 percent in 1990.

On schools. In a region of enormous wealth, many of our schools have large proportions of their students from low-income families. A hundred and twenty-eight schools in this region has more than 50 percent of their kids qualified for free or reduced- cost lunch, a much better indicator than poverty. That's 20 percent of the schools in the region.

This is not just about the District of Columbia. There are 39 schools in our inner suburbs that have between a half and three- quarters of their students qualifying for free or reduced-cost lunch. Three schools in Arlington, four in Fairfax, four in Montgomery, six in Alexandria, 19 in Prince George's.

On jobs. This is a region where jobs are decentralizing, like many places around the country. By 1998, the District of Columbia had a quarter of the region's jobs, down from a third in 1990. The District's loss of regional job share is the outer suburbs' gain. The areas beyond the Beltway now have 50 percent of the jobs in the region, up from 39 percent in 1990.

Yet, as Myron will show, even with this decentralization, there are still enormous densities--employment density--within the core and within the reach of the Beltway--at Tyson's, at Merrifield, at Rockville. So, that's our first finding. The region is divided in ways perhaps that confound conventional wisdom.

Second, this region we believe has the resources and the environment to bridge the divide. We are a highly prosperous region. Employment has grown by 12 percent in the 1990s. We have strong traction in the new economy, with its Infotech Corridor in Northern Virginia, and the Biotech Corridor in South Maryland.

We have nationally recognized universities and hospitals. The federal government remains a strong presence in this region, in terms of employment base, procurement of services and ownership of real estate. We are a tourism Mecca, as all of you know, for millions of people from around the country and around the world.

Our corporate and individual wealth is growing. We have relatively low poverty. The region's poverty rate in 1996 was 4.3 percent. The average for metropolitan areas is 13.7 percent. In 1996, the District of Columbia had a poverty rate less than 15 percent. That's low compared to the national city average of around 19 percent, and it's low compared to Philadelphia--24 percent; Baltimore, 24 percent; Cleveland, 30 percent and Atlanta, 34 percent.

The District is not as bad off as people think. We have relatively little fragmentation of local government. We tend to focus on the fact that we are in three states. But we only have 10 local jurisdictions--eight counties, the District of Columbia and the City of Alexandria.

In other regions--Chicago, St. Louis, Boston--there are literally dozens if not hundreds of local governments, each given land-use power, zoning power and taxing power.

We have, we believe, a political window in this region. With the election of a new mayor in the District of Columbia, with the enactment of Smart Growth in Maryland, with the growing reaction to hypergrowth in many of the Northern Virginia counties, we are at a moment where we believe what unifies us--a desire for a competitive region, for a high quality of life, for extended access to opportunity--may exceed what has historically divided us.

Our third finding is that to bridge the divide, we need to grow smarter. This region, like many regions that have experienced growth in the 1990s, is projected to grow even more in the coming decades.

We know what continuing to grow in the current pattern will bring us: more congestion, more loss of open space, more social divisions, more environmental problems. We can avoid these problems and set a new course by growing smarter. That means we will need to be better informed--not surprising that a research institution says we need more research, but it's true.

We need to make decisions made on current information about the region refined, precise, objective information. Myron and myself do work in many parts of this country. What we consistently find is places like Atlanta, places like Cleveland, places like Philadelphia, know much more information about how they're growing, how their jobs are connected or not connected to affordable housing, where the transit corridors lie.

We need to make decisions in ways that treat issues as linked and connected. We generally treat issues as if they can be placed in separate little boxes labeled "Traffic," or "Workforce," or "Housing" or "Environment." The bottom line is that these issues and policies are fundamentally connected.

We will not solve congestion just by building more roads, or widening existing ones. We need to think about where affordable housing is located, and whether housing is close to not only work, but retail and shopping. We need to think about where businesses locate and whether investment can occur in a more balanced fashion. And we need to think about workforce development, which is just a fancy way to talk about preparing and training our workers for good jobs.

We need to make decisions in a way that reaches across jurisdictions, and links the lack of growth of in places like Prince George's--the inner Beltway portion of Prince George's--to hypergrowth in Loudoun. Many of the issues we will discuss today cannot be solved locally. The market is regional. Issues like transportation and housing and investment and schools and workforce don't stop neatly at parochial borders.

We need to find new ways of relating to each other across jurisdictional lines, of not one metropolitan government, but a new form of metropolitan governments. I know in many parts of this country there's skepticism about metropolitan government. As Dick Low [ph] likes to say, regional governance is like the corpse at a funeral: you expect it to be there, but you don't expect it to do much. [Laughter]

So, regional governance has not had a good name in many parts of this country. But I think we need to prove the naysayers and the critics wrong. I think we need to reach across jurisdictions and reach across our other divisions, and collaborate on so many of those issues between governments in conjunction with private-sector leaders and other civic and environmental and community leaders.

That brings me to today. Why are you here--except to get out of the heat? What are we trying to accomplish? The forum is meant to be a step along the way in educating a regional audience about the importance of metropolitan solutions--metropolitan solutions--to address so many of the challenges that confront our region.

We are first going to hear from Myron Orfield. As I mentioned before, Myron is a state representative from Minnesota. He has perfected a fairly unique and compelling and provocative way of looking at regions.

We are then going to turn to a panel moderated by Kathy Merritt, who many of you know from her work at WAMU. The panel is designed to air a wide range of perspectives from the corporate, environmental, educational, church and other perspectives.

And finally, we will hear from Alice Rivlin, who has recently returned to Brookings after serving as the vice-chair of the Federal Reserve Board and director and deputy director of OMB. And as many of you know, Mrs. Rivlin is also the chair of the D.C. Control Board.

For the Urban Center, this is also a first step in the D.C. metropolitan arena. We are hoping to follow up this report with a more expanded delineation of policy options for the region that draws on best practices and models from around the country. We intend to focus our efforts particularly on workforce, affordable housing and transportation.

The other day I was driving in the car with my seven-year-old daughter. And as they usually do, she asked me a question. She said "Why do Americans think they're so great?" And you have to understand, she's half-French, so I didn't take this as a total affront. [Laughter] But I was a little taken aback.

And I gave her the wrong answer, actually--[Laughs]--in the car. What I probably would have said if I had thought about it more, is that Americans always think tomorrow will be better than today, and we always believe we can meet any challenge.

Well, I have a challenge for all of us in this room today, and for those who will be watching. I think the stakes for this region and for regions around the country are fairly high. If we continue to grow the way we've been growing, more decentralization, more outward migration of people, jobs and wealth, the divisions in this region will widen.

I don't believe this is an inevitable path. I do not believe it is dictated by the economy or our population trends. It is definitely, definitely not preordained in our public investments. I think the challenge before us is to figure out how to have a strong, competitive economy, robust income and job growth, high quality of life, and be a steward of the environment and enhanced opportunity for all people living in the region.

I don't think those objectives are a pipedream when you consider our strengths and the size of the task before us. We need to have the will and the discipline to set a vision, to think outside the box, to cut across our historic divisions, and to understand the power--the power--of working regionally.

With that, I want to reiterate my thanks for coming. And with that, I will hand over the mike and the forum to Myron Orfield. Again, Myron Orfield is a state representative in Minnesota. He is also head of the Metropolitan Area Research Corporation. He has probably done more than any single individual in the country to bring to the forefront issues around the changing nature of regions in this country. Thank you very much. Myron.

[APPLAUSE AND END OF WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS]

M. Orfield: Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to talk a little bit today about a topic that I call social separation in U.S. regions and sprawling patterns of land-use development.

The organization that I work with, the Metropolitan Area Research Corporation, has done mapping like we've done in this region for about 18 regions. We're working on 22 right now of the country's regions. So I can talk a little bit, before we can get into the Washington data, about a general pattern of development that we see occurring in U.S. regions.

One is a tremendous and interesting diversity in suburban communities. I think one of the things, when you're talking about the possibility of regions cooperating with each other, I think people often dismiss this possibility out of hand, because they believe that there is a monolithically affluent area of suburbs surrounding very poor central cities.

And one of the things we found, from looking at the broad diversity of regions in the country--in the Northeast, in the Midwest, in the Deep South, in the Far West--is that there is a lot of diversity in U.S. cities and there's a tremendous amount of diversity in the suburban ring of every region in the country--in the suburban communities in every region that we've looked at in the country.

Cities in some senses have a variable outcome. There are cities like Detroit in this country that are very poor and devastated. They have 31 percent of the region's average tax base per household and are declining. There are cities in this country like Seattle and San Francisco that are significantly above the regional average tax base and are now growing very rapidly.

So, cities have a variable outcome. Washington is somewhere in the midst of all of this. It's not one of the--poorest cities in the country, by any means. It's significantly better than many of the cities in the Midwest and Northeast.

Now, the suburban ring is even more complicated and interesting. There are several types of suburban communities in the country, in every region in the country. Some are older bedroom-type suburban communities, suburbs that surround the central city that are dominated by residential housing without a significant commercial base.

Not all the older suburbs, the inner-ring suburbs, are like this. Some of the inner-ring suburbs have very strong housing markets and a significant commercial base. They're not--they're a segment of the inner suburbs. But a lot of them are residential.

But the predominantly residential ones--and you'll see this in these maps, particularly in the older suburbs of Prince George's County and parts of the communities in Fairfax and Montgomery--these places represent 15, 20, 25 percent of U.S. regions. And they are beginning to experience a lot of the same things that central cities have for generations: increasing poverty in their schools, not as strong of a commercial draw as many of the newer developing communities.

Again, many of the patterns that played themselves out in the country in generations before, are affecting this older suburban sort of predominantly residential ring. Not all of the inner suburbs, but a very large part of them. And they represent 20--around 20 percent of the population of U.S. regions, sometimes as high as 25.

At the edge of metropolitan areas, not all communities are developing the same way either. Some communities are developing, again, a predominantly residential base with not executive housing, not a huge commercial base. And often, these communities have two and three times the percentage of students per household that the older suburbs do, and that the central cities do.

Oftentimes, the people that are moving to these communities are increasingly from the inner ring of older suburbs, or from other parts of the country, are leaving a place that has a certain amount of social stress and landing in a place that has significant fiscal stresses. They have to build new schools, as they have to deal with roads and infrastructure.

Often the solely residential base in these communities isn't significant enough to handle all the infrastructure needs. Often these places--I can think of places in the region, particularly places like Prince William and so forth--have a lot of growth, but not the same kind of powerful value that other places do.

There are other parts of the region that begin to dominate the executive housing market and the commercial-industrial capacity of the region. And in some ways, these places--they have tremendous fiscal capacity and tremendous growth. They also have the highest levels of congestion, the most rapid patterns of growth, the most rapid loss of green space. And often, these are the communities where local citizens are the least satisfied and the least happy with the tremendous rate of growth and development.

So these various types of communities that exist in the country are just everywhere. There's the older suburbs, the lower fiscal capacity suburbs, and the ones that are really dominating the executive housing market.

I'm going to show some pictures of Washington now. We can move to those slides we brought--[Laughter]--and talk a little bit about how these trends affect this region, and then follow up with sort of a broad outline of metropolitan proper.

This is a map that shows the percentage of female-headed households with children as a percentage of total households by place in 1990. And you can see the various categories: red is 32 percent or more. There's 21 of these census-designated places in that category. Orange is 18 to 31. Light blue is 14 to 18, the dark blue is 10 to 15. There's a medium blue, 7.5 to 10.4, and then below.

And one of the things that you can see is that these patterns of female-headed households--and we look at female-headed households for a couple of reasons. One is because children that grow up in female-headed households don't have the full system of love and support and family structure that people that have two- parent households do. And second, generally, the median household income is lower. For a single mother in 1995, the median household income for a female-headed household was $21,000. For a married couple, it was $47,000.

So you're looking at some social stress in these communities. As you can see, many of the communities, inner Prince George's County, but also in places like Alexandria and the inner part of the region throughout, there's a comparatively high rate of female- headed households in these areas. Again, some of the same patterns that are occurring in urban neighborhoods.

Could you change the slide, please. If you take a look at the change that is occurring in many of the older communities, particularly in Prince George's, but also older communities throughout the region, you see the red category with seven percentage point gain or more, is predominantly in the older suburban ring and Prince George's County, but also in others as well.

So you can see that this pattern of female-headed households doesn't just exist in the central cities. It exists in many of the older parts of the inner ring as well.

Could move to the next slide. This is a map that shows median household income by place in 1989. And people often talk about, you know, about the monolithic affluence of the suburbs. But you can see again quite a diversity in income in 1989. And particularly in Prince George's County, but also you can see in Alexandria and Arlington--not quite as high of a median income as in some of the outer-edge development communities or the communities that are prospering, as you'll see in terms of job growth.

Could you move to the next slide. Again, you can see the change in the older part of the regions. Many of the red communities are actually losing median household income during this period. And again, it's not just the central city. People talk about the possibility of cooperation between cities and suburban areas as not possible in America really after the late 1940s, because of the division between the cities and the suburbs. But when you look at these maps, over and over again, you see some of the common patterns between various suburban communities and city communities.

Now, let's move to the school slides, and I think I'd like to spend a little bit more time on the schools. This is a map of all of the elementary schools in the Washington region, and this is a map that shows the percentage of children that qualified for free and reduced-cost lunch in 1996. So it's a little bit more current than the census data. Not exactly up to the minute. But it gives you a little bit more of a perspective.

Now, my organization is very interested in schools. They think schools are a particularly powerful indicator of the future of communities. In one sense, the children that are growing up in the schools are one of the most likely groups of people to become adults in the communities. They're often a very powerful predictor of what's going to happen in the community a generation later. Usually, what happens in the schools in America happens in the communities later. They're an earlier indicator of what's happening.

So, distress in the schools, high poverty in the schools, that's one indicator. Those children are likely candidates to be adults in the community.

The second part that's very important is that middle-class families of all races, when schools reach thresholds of poverty, they don't choose those places to locate. They increasingly choose places with less poverty in America. They choose a school district that they can find that has the least poverty that they can afford to live into. So, schools are a powerful precursor of metropolitan patterns.

Now, in this map, you see that the red schools have 75 percent or more of the children qualifying for free and reduced-cost lunch. So the red schools are more than three-quarters of children qualifying for free and reduced-cost lunch.

And free and reduced-cost lunch, free lunch is 130 percent of the poverty level, reduced lunch is 185 percent of the poverty level. So you're thinking about families between 130 and 185. And you can see, one of the things you can see in many of the older suburban communities, that in this slide, you see not just Prince George's, but part of Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington, really--and part of the inner part of Montgomery all affected by these trends.

These trends of increasing poverty in the schools are not respecting as much the east-west divide as some of the other indicators. They exist really in all of the older suburban communities.

The region was about 30.9 percent of the children qualify for free and reduced-cost lunch. And in our studies in the country, that's close to the average. It's a little bit better than the average. The average is a little bit higher, like 33, 34 percent.

The District had 73.4. Prince George's as a district was at 40.8; Arlington, was at 42.7. And you can see some of the lower communities at the outer edge were places like Loudoun at 9.7 and Falls Church at 10.5--hardly unaffected by poverty, but not quite as high.

In 1996, 75 elementary schools had more than 75 percent of the children in poverty. All but three were in the city. But when you move to the second category--or the category between 54 and 73 percent--39 suburban schools were in that category, primarily in Arlington, nine schools, and Prince George's, 20 schools--but really, if you take a look at that map, many of the older schools as well.

Of the schools with 30 to 53 percent, 13 were in Fairfax and 22 in Montgomery and 57 in Prince George's. So again, not just a few communities are feeling it, but pretty much a lot of the older part of the region.

And in the studies that have been done of this, often these are the precursors of powerful forces that affect settlement patterns. Certainly changes like this were occurring generations ago in the District, before the profound changes that occurred in parts of those areas.

Again, I think one of the things they show is that these metropolitan development patterns that have been deeply injurious to cities don't stop neatly at the central city borders. Almost nothing does, in terms of these trends.

Now, let's take a look at the next slide. This is a map that shows the percentage of non-Asian minority students in the elementary schools of the region. And one of the reasons--I'd like to explain why we took Asians out of this, in terms of minority students. Partly it has to do with the pattern of residential discrimination in the housing markets that exist.

African-Americans and Hispanics are much more--as they've been measured, as their segregation indexes have been measured over the years, they've been far more significant, particularly African- Americans. But the Asian community as a whole doesn't have the same significant patterns of residential segregation that African-Americans and Asians do. In fact, certain Asian sub-groups are virtually indistinguishable from European-Americans.

Now, if you talk about the trends of this pattern of social separation, it's a very sad pattern, where concentration of poverty and race are often deeply intertwined. In studies about this throughout the country, measures of social separation--most notably, there's an index that was pioneered by two sociologists, Carl and Alma Toiber [ph], the Toiber [ph] Index of Racial Dissimilarities--they find that African-Americans and European- Americans arrived in northern cities at about the same measure in the early 1900s, at about a 40 measure in the Toiber [ph] Index of Dissimilarity--the most segregated European-American groups, that is, Italians and Irish.

Within a generation, Italians and Irish had diminished to almost nothing. And now, if you were to try to find it indexed, first of all, it's difficult to find pure Italian or Irish people in the country. And second, if you would try to find an index, there isn't much of one.

African-Americans moved from 40 to 70 in 1940 and they had moved upwards really up until the 70s and the 80s and in many places in the country, they're between 70 to 80, very high indexes. Hispanics in the 30s. That's why we talk about non-Asian minorities.

Because you can see again, the patterns of poverty and race are pretty powerfully interlinked. The red elementary schools have more than 94 percent of their children of non-Asian minority. The orange are between 70 and 93, light orange 49 to 68--you can see the color scale. And again, many of the older parts are in this range.

Now in the region, the region was 48.9 percent of the elementary students were non-Asian minority students. And the range was from 94.3 in the District of Columbia to 10.6 in Frederick. Alexandria had 70.9. Prince George's was at 81.4. There were 128 schools that are more than 94 percent non-Asian minority students, 34 suburban, 33 in Prince George's County and one in Frederick. There were 14 schools in Prince George's that had at least 98 percent non-Asian minority students.

Now, let's move to the next slide. This is a map that shows the change. And this is in the Maryland communities--the Maryland suburban districts. And you can see the change in the number of schools.

The red schools, of which there were 33, changed 20 points or more. So you can see--and this is a period between 1989 and '96. So about a seven-year period. So you can see some fairly significant changes that are occurring in many of the elementary schools in the inner part of the region of Prince George's and Montgomery. The orange schools are between 14 and 19, then it goes down to 7.5 to 14 points.

But these are fairly large changes region-wide and suburban districts. If you take a look at our studies in the other parts of the country, this many schools changing at this level is a comparatively big change.

Let's move to the next slide. And here are the schools in the Virginia part of the region. And again, you can see 20 or more changing nine points or more. And this is a slightly different period. We didn't have absolutely compatible data between the regions. That's why we had to divide it up. We didn't have the same time span. It's sometimes hard to come by this at this level of detail.

But you have 20 schools that are changing 9.8 percent or more, and then 49 between four and nine. This is a shorter period of time, only a three-year period.

So you can see again these patterns of separation are occurring really in powerful rings of the older suburban communities, predominantly on an eastern and western cycle, but really all of the older communities of the region as well.

Let's move to the next slide. This is a map that shows major highway improvements in a 10-year period. You can see, again, one of the things that we talk about in our organization is that people say again "Regional cooperation is impossible in America." And one of the things that we note is that regions in this country build highways together pretty well, and they do a lot of other things.

Now, one of the things that I should note in the report is the very strong commitment in this region to transit, much better than in most parts of the country. And a very significant investment in the transit system that isn't present in other parts of the country. So, that is something that is a little bit more stronger and more equitable--the division and spending between transit and highways in this region, although there are--

This region builds about the same number of highways as most of the regions in the country. It builds a lot of highways, it builds a lot of transit. I think the difference is they do both.

This is a map that shows the pattern of highway investments throughout the areas. About $2.9 billion during this period in expenditures. And this is highway improvement. It's not maintenance, it's the costs of improvements. Three hundred and fifty million in the Dulles Greenway. There were five $100 million projects, all outside the Beltway. Four of them were on the western side of the region.

Some of the most expensive highway improvements were I-95 from the District through Fairfax and Prince William at a cost of $341 million; $277 million was spent on I-270 from the Beltway through Montgomery. U.S. 50 through Prince George's County was about $240 billion, and the list goes on and on.

They're significant investments. These are the things that we do together as a region, the building of these highways. This money is really divided and given to the MPOs in the regional structure to divide across the region. It's a resource that belongs equally to all the parts of the region, in many senses. It's a grant indivisible to the region.

And generally, what we do in America--often--is we build radial highways. Probably the biggest pattern that we've seen in our studies of the country are radial highways--spoke highways--that lead out of central cities and older suburbs. And they point towards the fastest-growing, most powerfully job-creating parts of the region.

In Chicago, a billion and a half dollars estimate on the Kennedy moving out of the city toward the northwestern suburbs beyond O'Hare, an area of the region which is about 20 percent of the population, 80 percent of the net new job growth in the region in Chicago.

In Philadelphia, powerful highway radial segments leading out of the core towards the King of Prussia corridor. In Seattle, most of the highway investment is concentrated on the northeast development quadrant and the northeast suburbs around Redmond and Bellevue, where there are very high-tech spokes or job-growth center.

In Los Angeles, radial highways that lead toward the vastly growing parts of interior Orange County. And again, this is a fairly common pattern. And it isn't a particular--in our view, it isn't a particular conspiracy. Usually it's a pattern that shows where the commuting pattern is. Usually these roads are improved because this is where the traffic is. One of the reasons that that's where the traffic is because the jobs are out at the edge, often, and the workers that need the jobs live in the core.

And usually----what happens is the MCOs prioritize the most-congested segments of the region. Anyway, you can see clearly the pattern of development.

Let's move on to the job growth slides. This shows some employment per hundred persons. And I think when you look at the job growth, it's important to look at the absolute numbers as well. You see some fairly strong pockets of jobs in the District. You see some fairly strong in the older Virginia suburbs, and you see some very strong concentrations of job growth that are existing jobs.

This is a measure of jobs per hundred persons in Fairfax County. So, I think one of the things you see in this region of the country is some fairly strong job centers in the central cities and in some of the older suburbs, particularly on the western side of the region.

And some of the older suburban markets are fairly strong in the country now. Buckhead [ph] in Atlanta is particularly strong. Many of the older suburban places that have proximity to the city are. And it may be some of these markets are strong here because of the presence of the federal government as a powerful presence here in Washington. I'm not sure. But you do have some comparatively strong job centers in your older suburban area, particularly in the west.

Let's move to the next slide. This shows job growth, and this is by CAD between 1985 and 1995. So, a 10-year period. And you can see again, this is--the CADs are Council of Government Analysis Districts. Just to tell you what they are. Sometimes these are also called "TAD Zones," or Traffic Analysis Districts. This is often a way that metropolitan planning organizations keep track of data like this, in terms of their broad mission.

Again, you can see comparatively strong growth in Fairfax and in the western part of the area, partly in the city as well. Let's move to the next slide. I think you get a--

This is probably a little bit easier measure. This is a private market report from a company called Robert Charles Lesser [ph] & Company. Christopher Weinberger is the analyst that does what he calls metropolitan opportunity analyses. Some of his large clients include Rouse Interests and TrammelPro [ph] and so forth. And he tends to create commercial cores based on his experience and his data-gathering capacity, and analyze these cores in terms of what he calls their fair share of growth index.

And you can see again, particularly in the west, some of the cores in the west are growing as much as nine times the regional speed. Most of the blue ones are growing at--all of the blue ones are growing above the regional average, the orange and the red ones are below. So again, you can see growth to the west.

Anyway, I've concluded--this is kind of a conclusion of a summary. The larger reports we did has some 35 or 40 maps in it, probably a great deal more data--oh, we have one more slide. I'm sorry.

This is a map that shows change in the urbanized area between 1970 and '90. And this is essentially a map that showed change in the urbanized area at a density of 1,000 people per square mile. It's probably, again, underinclusive, but it's the best that the census does during this period. During this period, the region increased by about 35 percent in terms of population, and it increased in land area at a density of 1,000 people per square mile--more than 95 percent. So it grew in land area about two and a half times as fast as it grew in population, which is roughly average in the United States right now.

Some places in the country, like Portland, are growing close to at the same level in terms of population and land-use. South Florida is growing at a smaller rate, the Bay Area a little bit too. But this is, again, you can see. And again, there's a sense of--when you look at these studies of communities building a whole new ring of communities every generation as the older community becomes distressed. That's one of the common patterns you see in this analysis of the country, is kind of the development of the land-area, of a whole new ring of cities as the older suburban ring begins to experience the social and economic distress.

Now, I think this pattern outlines broadly what I've called, or what my organization has called the social separations and sprawling land-use patterns that exist in the country. I think that our experience has been, too, that as regions of the country begin to be able to cooperate with each other, begin to discuss these issues with each other, there are some good effects, in terms of these trends.

When the jurisdictions can stop the wholehearted competition with each other, viewing their futures as completely separate and independent and working together, there are possibilities for improvements in these trends.

Many things have happened in the country along this. It's not like this is a blank playing field, and nothing is going on. There's places in the country that have embarked on strong, Smart Growth initiatives. Maryland has been one of the places that's been a leader in all of this.

There are places like where I'm from in the Twin Cities, where we've worked at diminishing the dependence on local property tax base for local services, stopping the intense warfare for ratables among communities, trying to even out a little bit the fiscal capacity of communities.

There are places that have made their regional government systems more inclusive and open to the public, more multi-faceted. When highways are improved, it's not just about expanding capacity, but it's thinking about the long-term development patterns in the region.

I think all of these solutions, in terms of equity, in terms of structure, in terms of land-use reform--they must be local solutions. They must come from the ground up, they must be decided by the localities. They just come from public meetings in the communities, and they must come from the interest groups that exist there.

But the experience has been that those communities that have taken these things on and have worried about their common problems and have worried about their common patterns of development, tried to increase their efficiency, tried to diminish their internal competition and increased their ability to compete in the broader scale, have fared better, in terms of the economy and in terms of the social health of the region and in terms of the central cities, and particularly in terms of these older suburbs, which I believe are more vulnerable in the long term to these trends than the central cities.

So, I am delighted to be here today to talk about these trends. And I'd be happy to participate in the panel in the way that I should, and I think I've probably used more than my time. So, thank you.

[APPLAUSE AND END OF KEYNOTE]

B. Katz: We are exactly on time. You know, the first time I saw Myron's maps, which was probably about four or five years ago, when I was at HUD, obviously they're incredibly compelling and incredibly visual. The problem is I'm color-blind. [Laughter]

So, I see all the blue as purple, and I see all the, you know, the orange as green. So I kept asking "What about the purple?" [Laughter] You know, "What about the green areas?" [Laughter] And so, now that I understand and that I've been taught the colors again, I can really understand the power of these maps.

We are now going to move to what I think is going to be a very interesting conversation, which is going to be a panel of corporate, civic, environmental, and community and political leaders, and Myron Orfield, to talk about reactions to this report, reactions to Myron's findings, and to really talk about, you know, potentially how does this change perceptions of the region and where do we go from where.

We are assisted here by Kathy Merritt from WAMU. I think many of the people in the audience know Kathy because of the "Metro Connection" program on Sundays and because of her many other works at WAMU, which is our regional radio station for NPR.

In a very short period of time, I think she's become one of the key radio personalities in this region, and really begun to focus in on some very difficult and complex and sometimes controversial issues. She is not from here, she's from the great state of North Carolina. And I will have her introduce the panel.

Thanks.

K. Merritt: I'll grab my microphone. I will get to be Oprah Winfrey today. [Laughter] This is a little different from my usual radio venue, where I sit behind a microphone all by myself. And today, I get to see all of you--which is delightful.

I don't know about you, but I was deeply moved by those statistics. [Laughter] And I know we have a lot of great comments coming up from people who will share how moved they were, and share their ideas about where we do go from here. So let me introduce the people who will be sharing their thoughts for the next hour or so, and then we want you to get into the act as well. And I'll have the microphone out there in the audience so that you can ask your questions and make your comments.

Let's start with Doug Patton, who is here from the Mayor's Office. He is the deputy mayor for the District of Columbia. And of course he's right here in the center of things, right in the core of the region. And Doug, you can come on up and take your seat while I'm introducing you.

His official title is Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. And he will put into place the first stage of a comprehensive plan for the Office of Planning and Economic Development, and will also coordinate short-term action plans with service delivery agencies, prioritize economic development projects and issues for the city, and develop a long-term strategy for public-private partnerships. So he's really right in the thick of all this.

And Doug, we're glad to have you here with us today.

D. Patton: Thanks.

K. Merritt: I know you were kind of a last-minute addition to the panel, and we appreciate your being here.

D. Patton: I'm used to it, though. [Laughter]

K. Merritt: Brenda Lee Richardson is also part of our panel today. She's a resident of Anacostia, and she is the only one on the panel who has named herself as an "eco-feminist," so I think she's going to bring a particular viewpoint to the panel. [Laughter]

She's been working on welfare reform, environmental justice, economic development and health issues for the past 10 years. And she currently serves as managing director of the Metropolitan Dialogue, a group of people of faith who meet monthly to discuss civic issues here in the District. So again, a different perspective, I think, from some of the other folks that we might hear here today.

Michael Rogers is also on our panel, and he's not in the center of things, he's all-encompassing. He is the executive director of the Washington Council of Governments, and he's served in that position for just about a year now, since July of 1998.

And of course I think most of us who have been here for a few years also remember that he served as city administrator here in D.C., and deputy mayor of operations for the District of Columbia. So, again, he'll bring a D.C. perspective but also that very important regional perspective to the panel.

Scott York made the longest commute to be here today. [Laughter] He is a supervisor in Loudoun County, and I was kidding with him because I live about 10 minutes from here, and I told him I was still in bed while he was making this commute in from Loudoun County.

S. York: So don't be surprised if I fall asleep.

K. Merritt: That's right. [Laughter]

S. York: Just bring in the--[Off mic]--[Laughter]

K. Merritt: We'll just wake you gently when it's time for you to comment. But he was elected to the Board of Supervisors in November of 1995, and he's chairman of the Board of Supervisors Land-Use Committee. So it will be interesting to hear what he's got to say about land-use in the region.

Reverend Lionel Edmonds is also here. He is the president of the Washington Interfaith Network. And it was very interesting to sit next to him during the presentation and hear his comments about some of the maps that were being presented. So I'll be asking you about that, Reverend Edmonds. You shouldn't have done that. You never tell the moderator all the things--[Laughter]--that you're thinking as the maps go up.

Rev. Edmonds: Just kidding.

K. Merritt: Just kidding. He is one of the co-founders of Washington Interfaith Network. And that is a broad-based, non- partisan organization of 45 multi-denominational congregations, which represents more than 20,000 District of Columbia families. And they certainly played a role in the elections last year. If you live in D.C., you know that WIN had a little bit of a pledge that they asked the candidates to take that were running for office.

Now, from an environmental point of view, we have Michael Hirshfield, who is vice president of resource protection programs for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. And before that, he also worked at the Center for Marine Conservation here in Washington, D.C. And I have a feeling we might get a few questions about the Chesapeake Bay today. So we're glad to have you on the panel as well.

Education. We saw a lot of maps about that. It's a very important issue for many people here, and Darlene Mickey is here. She's chair of the Arlington County School Board, and she'll be bringing that perspective to us today. She's been chair of the School Board in Arlington County since July of 1998, and before that, she was the owner of Virginia Goods and Gifts. She's a realtor in Arlington, and she brings, again, a unique perspective on what's going on in our region.

Mario Morino is chairman of the Morino Institute and he's founder and co-chair of the Potomac KnowledgeWay Project. He has a 30-year career as a business leader, an entrepreneur, and an authority on information technology. He's part of this new information technology explosion that's happening out in Northern Virginia, and he'll be helping decipher some of that for us, and tell us about the impact of that.

And Myron, if you want to come up and join us as well, we'd love to have more of your input. And I'll gather my papers here again that I've scattered everywhere.

I think the first order of business, really, is to just get some reactions to what we've seen so far. And there are a couple of more seats up here, if anybody wants to grab a seat. We have one more, if anybody wants to come up and not have to lean against a wall.

But let's just get some reactions to begin with, because we have just been hit with a lot of information here. I know it's hard to absorb it all. At least we've had a chance--the people on the panel--to get it a little bit in advance. So we knew a little bit about what was coming. But Michael Rogers, I want to start with you, because you do have this big regional perspective from the Council of Governments.

Give us the honest answer about how well we cooperate regionally. You know, we don't want the glossed-over, happy smile- face kind of answer that we're doing great, and, you know, everything looks rosy. If you had to give this region a grade on how well we cooperate regionally, what grade would you give?

M. Rogers: Well. [Laughter] Thank you, Kathy.

Well, let me say, first, that obviously, from the work--and this is very important work for this region--that this is a very strong region. The question is, is can the region continue to prosper if there are significant segments that are impaired and unable to contribute at the same level?

And I think the research certainly demonstrates that the answer probably is no. So the question is what do we do about it? And do we have the history in this region of working cooperatively enough to address these issues?

The reality is that if two states and a state-like district--the reality is that the division is not just east-west, but north- south, depending on which side of the Potomac in which you happen to live. I mean, that is the reality, in terms of difference of political culture, difference in laws to which the cities and counties in this region are subjected, a difference in political philosophy, in how to approach problems.

So, those are the real divisions. I think that the current method of approaching regional issues just won't do any longer--that we will not continue to prosper and enjoy the benefits of the new economy that Mario talked so much about, all of us learning so much about, unless we address some of the real gaps in prosperity in the region--some of the pockets of poverty.

So I think that the dialogue today should really focus on now that we know this, we have this, we have this beautiful packaged report that really presents in a way that perhaps has not been presented before, you know, a profile of our region and raises some issues, what do we do about it? Will the existing structures and way of doing business work to resolve these issues?

K. Merritt: You very beautifully avoided my question. [Laughter] I won't go back. But let me ask you one other question, then I really want to get a quick reaction from everybody on the panel. But what struck you most as you were looking at all these different maps up there? Was there one statistic that really drove the point home for you somehow, that there are big divisions in the region?

M. Rogers: Well, I think what struck me most is the pattern of elementary school segregation, if you will, and that that is a forecaster, as Myron pointed out, of the future of a community, and if you look at that, then you see that many of the issues that are facing the inner city and closer in--the inner jurisdictions--are making their way to the suburban communities. That alone ought to be enough for the elected officials and policy officials in this region to come together to deal with that issue, and make sure that we can address those issues in a cooperative way that's good for the entire region.

K. Merritt: I want to go to Reverend Edmonds, because the map that most struck you, as we were sitting there chatting, was the one about female-headed households, because you turned me and you said, you know, "Look at this. This is why child care is important, this is why after-school care is important." Was that, out of all of these, something that for you was very significant, that map?

Rev. Edmonds: Well, I want to first thank Bruce for getting us all together. And there's an old saying in the African- American church that "you can't beat the devil runnin'." In other words, problems will follow you. And I think the problems you see in the great divide resurface in different shapes in the region.

We've known for a long time that working mothers need affordable housing, working mothers need extended hours for child care; working mothers need workforce deductibles. And it wasn't surprising, but I guess when you're in the midst of the divide, you never really comprehend how great the problem is. You don't have time to see how great it is.

But what is beneficial I think is all the resources that can be tapped. And I think the divide, you know, shouldn't be looked upon as despairing, although those in the divide are full of despair. I think that it's the potential to develop community and to rebuild the center, and that if we come together as a community, I think the center can be rebuilt that might connect east-west, or, like Michael said, north-south.

K. Merritt: Well, what about the center, Mr. Patton? D.C. is squarely in the middle of all this. It has the divide running really right through it. Can D.C. work at its divisions and create a sort of template for the entire region? Can this be a model for the region if D.C. can address the issues in a way that other people can then follow?

D. Patton: Well, Kathy, that's a tough question. And I think the mayor and his administration is committed to the neighborhoods first of all, and that's been articulated out there publicly and privately.

It's sort of been a traditional saying that Rock Creek Park has always been the dividing line and now we're moving east a bit, I guess we got to 16th Street, in terms of being a divide. And the thing that didn't surprise me but it bothered me extensively, was to see the single-parent homes. And it was illustrated to me about 10 days ago, when the mayor was at Langley Park for announcement of some of his appointments.

And a very nice park, but a lot of children there. And Dr. Omar, the chief of staff to the mayor, commented afterwards--and I noticed the same thing--is the attraction that the children had on the lack of a male in that particular community. I mean, the children out there are basically by themselves or with their mothers. And that's a very glaring type of void that I can't quite say how we address that. But one of the things that we address that I think is twofold, is to restore those neighborhoods and those communities in terms of jobs--and that's what we talked about.

And how do you do that, is you be creative. And I think we're committed to being creative, in terms of restoring those neighborhoods. We have a lot of interest in the District right now, from outside interests, developers, retail businesses. We have to take advantage of that, because I have a feeling this economy won't last this way forever. So we have to take advantage of it now.

And we were commenting last night--I was getting on the Metro, which is packed still at 9:30 at night--is what would the region do--what would we do without a Metro today? It started in 1976. I mean, we would have gridlock on Ellicott Street, where I live, all the time. And so you're seeing even more gridlock, obviously, in Northern Virginia that's, you know, taking place in the rest of them.

So we cannot stand isolated from those problems as a district, even though it is center. So we have to work regionally, as well as focusing neighborhood-wise to restore those.

Now, sometimes we'll probably be in conflict with Maryland and Virginia. But I don't think it has to be all the time that we have to, you know, promote the city and the region from a regional perspective. And I would say the region is competing against Toronto, Singapore, Brussels, Paris, London, et cetera, in terms of economies. And we have to approach it that way, that we're competing against L.A.

We aren't--we shouldn't just look at ourselves--on competing the District, I'm talking about with Maryland and Virginia. And I think Maryland and Virginia has to approach it that same way. And because we have to at least bring together that huge divide in some respect--and it won't be done, frankly, overnight.

K. Merritt: Well, Scott York what about in Loudoun County? Tell me what you saw in this presentation, what struck you, and then follow up on Doug Patton's comments. Is there a divide? You know, is D.C. competing with Loudoun County? Are you competing with D.C.?

S. York: Well, the report was interesting for me from the aspect of what perhaps is happening on a social level. Everything else to do with land-use, the impact of the economic area, is nothing new, because Loudoun County has been going through this quite handily within the last few years with this new term that I've learned, "hypergrowth." We call it "madness." [Laughter]

The interesting thing that we have found--and I think one thing that we've got to follow up with this report is why is this happening? Not that it's happened, and this is what has happened as a result, but why is it happening?

One thing that is very attractive to the large corporations--one is that we have land available for campus corporate headquarters. The other aspect is they have to attract perhaps a more sophisticated workforce, in terms of these folks that are coming in want high-quality schools. They want parks, other recreation and other amenities around them. They want a low tax rate within their community.

And as I look at this, in trying to be a problem-solver within my community, I see a natural workforce in D.C. to help out those employers that have come to Loudoun County. The question is, is how we make the connection.

The problem that we're going through now is that we're getting a workforce from around the nation coming into Loudoun County. We are growing at eight percent a year, our school population is growing by 10 percent. In your report, you talked about the fact that in six years, we've got 22 schools to build.

When we did our--we're in the midst of our 10-year capital needs document. We got 43 schools to build in 10 years if growth continues. It is very difficult. And the thing I try to preach to everybody is if Loudoun County keeps on the same mode, it's going to be very difficult to deliver the very services that these people are moving to Loudoun County for. And the thing that we have to understand regionally, with the high-tech industry, is that it's very easy for them to assess what is happening in a community, and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

And if that does start happening, then we're all in a world of hurt. And we have to come together and work together on a regional basis, along with the business community, and try to solve some of these problems. But again, looking at that particular map there, I think there's a natural workforce here that the business community isn't tapping. And we've got to solve that one.

K. Merritt: Well, let's see what Mario Morino thinks about that. Potomac KnowledgeWays, the Morino Institute. Are you looking for workers from the inner cities of D.C., or where are people coming from?

M. Morino: Well, let me be specific for you, and speak at the same time at the general level. I want to give you an anecdotal interview we had once that sort of gives the crux of the problem. The firm will go nameless. It's not one of the newer high-tech firms, by the way, but it's one of the largest in the world.

And we interviewed the CEO, and we were asking for support for the KnowledgeWay Fund. He said "Mario," he said, "I love your idea," he says. "But at the end of the day, for this business to succeed, it doesn't matter whether the Greater Washington region succeeds or not. I just need to make sure one region in the world succeeds." The new global business.

That's a very harsh comment. It was a very real comment. And Scott's comment about the mobility is very real. Is there a labor pool to be tapped? Yes, but I also think we as a community--business community--our leaders are kidding themselves, to a large degree. The gap is far greater than we want to admit.

We see silver bullets in the training. I think there's been two recent stories in the Post that have both been somewhat negative, and I would say justifiably so, to the fact of how people are being trained, and what expectations are for these people in these jobs.

There are jobs that individuals can be trained for. One of the projects going on in Seattle today is equipping people to come into customer support roles. And that's a capacity today that doesn't require significant, deep education. It requires good human skills, and we can train individuals to get in those capacities.

If we think we're going to get massive change in workforce in a short period of time--five or eight years--because we're going to take all the individuals who have no fundamental, deep education--and that's not a criticism, that's just a fact of where these individuals are in life--and turn them into data base experts and network experts, and process reengineers, we are kidding ourselves. We are setting false expectations for those we want to train, and we're setting up basically intermediaries that will only fail us, and we'll have misused investment.

Now, that's not to say it's fruitless. It's meaning to say we must be much smarter in how we go about engaging our populations. To date, KnowledgeWay has done one study, and we show something like 147 different efforts in this region trying to deal with workforce. Candidly, that's pathetic.

Why aren't we reaching out to Cisco? Cisco is a major Internet provider of equipment. And the Internet, in this case, they have now created the Cisco Network Academy. It's done on- line, it's working with high schools and community colleges, they now have 2,400 academies established. This year, they'll produce 20,000 certified Cisco engineers by their terms, and next year, they're projecting 40,000

I don't see that on the lips of many people in this region. The firm that I'm with is creating a Webmaster Certification program. I think what we've got to do, is we've got to get inside the businesses, learn a lot more about their needs. I think we're talking many times to the wrong people. We have intermediaries in place that are trying to make action, but what they're doing, they are spinning activity.

And we've got to get people who really need this bad--the new firms who understand the needs today. And you get that right back to the community base and be very honest as to what the jobs are. No, don't say there's 20,000. Be very specific as to what they are, and then align our educational programs to feed those specific niche categories.

K. Merritt: Well, let's talk about education with Darlene Mickey for a minute, who is chair of the Arlington County School Board. Certainly your job isn't just preparing workers for Mario here. It's a lot greater than that.

But how do you give students the basics they need when you've got a school system like yours that has great schools, that has schools that need help? How do you bridge that gap within your own school system?

D. Mickey: Well, I guess I bristle at "schools that need help." Because I have a real strong belief that schools are more than test scores. And I believe that all of our schools are strong. I believe that the test scores in Arlington, in some ways, while they reflect the poverty that does show up on the maps and in lives in Arlington, that also second-language [worries ?], because we have a very large population of children who do not speak English as a native language.

In fact, we have 70 languages that are spoken in Arlington public schools. Most of the languages are just a few students. Most of the second-language students are Hispanic or speak Spanish as their first language. And that doesn't reflect anything other than it's hard to learn the contents of a core subject if you don't know the language.

But just to answer the question about Mario, he'd be very happy to know that we have three schools that are going to be Cisco schools this year. And we're excited about that, trying to, as he just said, find those jobs and train our students to meet that particular niche.

In Arlington, we feel we're pretty unique. And of course, every jurisdiction probably feels that. Almost every time I read a story in the paper, I think "Thank God I live in Arlington." We're small. We are relatively very wealthy. We have a very strong tax base. Fifty percent of our tax base comes from business, so the property tax is only residents is supporting 50 percent of our budget.

Location, of course, is the key. We're very close to the District. We have the lowest tax rate in the regional area. Our property tax is below a dollar. Perry Gourd [ph] has worked real hard to keep that. And as a school board member, I fight against that, because I want the money for the schools and they have to weigh keeping the tax rate low and attractive to keep people moving to Arlington.

I'm a real estate agent. We have a very high median cost of housing. And so we struggle against kids in our schools--our school population does not reflect the county population at all. The county population is 30 percent minority and 70 percent Anglo, our school population is about 60 percent minority and 40 percent Anglo. Our school population is very much poorer than the county population.

So, our goal is to keep that before the citizens and before the county board. We've been very fortunate that the citizens of Arlington are very supportive of the Arlington public schools.

We've had six bond referendum on the ballot since '88, totaling $176 million. All of those bonds have passed between 70 and 80 percent of the voters. We have another over $100 million projected in the next six years. Only 15 percent of the population in Arlington have children in Arlington public schools. So we have a very supportive population. We have a very attractive jurisdiction. And we've been very cognizant of the challenges, but we've been able to put money into our schools, we've been able to hire good teachers, we've been able to improve our buildings.

We actually, in this--I always say quietly, because we get criticism for it--we put almost $10,000 per student into the Arlington public schools. It's a very high figure, and some people look at test scores and say "You don't have the results that that should bring us." But we feel we're extremely competitive, and we're looking forward to our announcement today, I think, of this year's standard of learning test results.

I haven't seen them--[Laughs]--so I'm looking at it, waiting with anticipation also. But I think we're going to show that we can educate all the kids in Arlington, whatever their socio-economic background might be.

K. Merritt: Well, we'll keep our fingers crossed about the test scores. And we'll find out later today. A couple of more comments, then I'm going to ask a question to everybody on the panel. But we haven't heard from Brenda Lee Richardson of Metropolitan Dialogue.

Going back to that question of what in the presentation struck you? What did you see that surprised you in some way, or do these maps just confirm what you already know?

B. Richardson: I think that they confirm what I already knew, but I found the maps pretty compelling. I think one in particular that I found rather curious was the on about job growth. And when I was talking to Scott, I was just--I was looking at Loudoun County, and then I was comparing it to where I live east of the river in Anacostia. And we were always in the red, and you were always in the blue.

But I found that rather curious, and I guess I'm concerned that there's this disconnect, and when you're looking at the region being divided, I guess I'm here today to ask myself the question how do we make this work? And as I look at this, there has to be some political will to start this courting process, if you will. Because it's like the east side and the west side, we have to get married. But before we get married, we have to court each other.

So, I have to invite Scott to Anacostia so he can see my world. And I've never been to Loudoun County--[Laughter]--and I think it's important for us--I haven't. It's too far away. [Laughter]

S. York: Whenever you want to, I'll take you to Lansdowne for dinner. [Laughter]

B. Richardson: Okay. But I think it's really important that this courtship has to happen. And the other thing that I wanted to say, to follow up on what Mario was saying, is that as a social worker--I'm a social worker by profession--there is this language barrier.

And I'm working with welfare reform here in the District. And when I went and talked to the business community, it's like "You've got 15 minutes of my time, and if you can't talk to me about how this is going to affect my bottom line, then I don't want to talk to you." And I think that it works both ways, because the business community needs to understand where we're coming from, just as they need to understand, just, you know, vice-versa.

The other thing that I want to share is I'm sorry that Marie Johns is not here, because when she was talking about setting up the Technology Council in the District, one of the questions that I asked her, "Is it going to come east of the river?" I've realized that our quality of life east of the river cannot improve unless economic development improves over there. And my good buddy, Doug Patton is going to make sure that happens, right? [Laughter]

Okay, he said it here publicly. Okay. A shotgun marriage here. [Laughter]

K. Merritt: I'm not sure how to follow that up. [Laughter] Let's move in a completely different direction now, and hear from Michael Hirshfield, who's with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. We didn't see any maps on the environment here, but if you were to draw one, what would you draw for us?

M. Hirshfield: I think what we'd draw is the conversion of the Chesapeake Bay's green infrastructure to concrete infrastructure. We have a saying at the Bay Foundation that you can't save the Bay if you're going to pave the Bay. And the statistic in this report that is the most telling for us is that while the region's population grew by a third from 1970 to 1990, the land that was used to accommodate that population growth doubled.

So we are talking about a wholesale transformation of a landscape that is gobbling up our green infrastructure. And when I say green infrastructure, I'm talking about forcing wetlands. There are three sewage treatment plants. They're filtering the water, they're giving us cool temperatures, they're keeping heat islands from frying all of us.

When we destroy the green infrastructure, we have to replace it with sewage treatment plants, septic systems. Those are real costs to society that don't always get brought into the calculations of how our development costs should be measured. When we talk about paving our way out of congestion, we talk about the cost associated with sitting in traffic. But we really don't take into account the non-market costs that are associated with development.

The environmental community really believes that we have an extraordinary amount of existing infrastructure in the already- developed areas. And the maps that show what's called, you know, the mushroom ring development really brought that home to us--that if we can figure out ways to change our land-use practices so that we're not leap-frogging ever further away from areas that already have schools, already have environmental infrastructure, already have all the housing, sort of refocus the growth to where it should be, we will solve a lot of the problems that we're talking about on this panel. And, as a byproduct, we'll make it possible for us to have a healthier Chesapeake Bay, healthier forests, and a healthier quality of life for all the people in this region.

K. Merritt: Myron, anything you want to add to what the panelists have said so far? You've probably been through these kind of sessions before. Have you heard all these kind of comments in the past?

M. Orfield: Yeah. [Laughter] And--

K. Merritt: Nothing original here. [Laughter]

M. Orfield: I think one of the things I'd like to say is you know, these are common concerns. And I think I'd like to respond to a few of the comments. I think of some of the most sophisticated business entrepreneurs and at the heart of the new economy are the Silicon Valley manufacturers' district in the Bay Area. And I think they have embraced a lot of what we're talking about today.

I think that if you take a look at what's happened here, and play it out over a slightly larger region over a longer time, and they are dealing with gridlock and inability to get workers to jobs--very significant problems. And they have really embraced a lot of the reforms, in terms of Smart Growth, in terms of affordable housing, in terms of bulky modal transportation systems.

It's not a series of pointy-headed liberals that are pushing all this. It's a series of very hard-headed businessmen at the heart of the new economy. I think, too, the Bank of America and California has embraced a lot of the forward-thinking about these concerns and the Commercial Club of Chicago, a very large business group, and others.

So I think it isn't just--it is a business-oriented solution in lots of ways to think about some of these things together, to cooperate.

I also think in terms of the workforce issues, one of the things that's going to happen in this region if you continue to create dozens and dozens of densely poor schools in your older suburban ring, you're going to have the same problem with performance in those schools as the central city had. And you're doing that.

And if you're talking about a workforce in this region for the future, if you're creating dozens and dozens and dozens of more very poor schools, those schools as a rule haven't performed as well as schools that haven't been as impoverished.

So it's a question of the opportunity that those kids are going to have in those schools, and it's also a question of what kind of a workforce you're going to develop as a region, and if you're going to continue to allow the schools in Arlington and Alexandria and the inner part of Fairfax and the inner part of Montgomery and the inner part of Prince George's to follow the same pattern as the city schools are, you're going to have the same result, and that's going to have an impact in your workforce.

I think that--I guess basically that's what I'd like to touch on. I mean, I think that a lot of these issues that we're talking about, if you take a look at these patterns as they've become more advanced and more intractable in larger regions of the country, I think a lot of the things that Smart Growth and regional cooperation and coordination and planning are talking about, are things that have been embraced by a broad segment of suburban and urban business and the non-profit sector.

K. Merritt: I want to ask a couple of questions before we take audience questions. And I'll just throw these out and feel free to respond. I don't want to have to call on each one of you. Just if you have something to say, jump in.

But, you know, Brenda Lee Richardson and Doug Patton have this shotgun marriage now. [Laughter] They've begun the courtship, but I'm curious as to--

Rev. Edmonds: I'll officiate. [Laughter]

S. York: And I'll provide the place.

K. Merritt: And Scott's going to take care of the reception. [Laughter]

S. York: Not only that, I'll have the new home. [Laughter]

K. Merritt: Regional cooperation is blooming as we speak. But I'm curious, though. Where does the courtship start? You know, where does this whole process start? Because you're all representing different interests and you're coming at this from different angles. Michael Rogers, where can we start to have these conversations? Is it one conversation? Is it 10 conversations? One about transportation, one about education? Where does it begin?

M. Rogers: I think it's a conversation about a shared vision for this region and where we all see ourselves in the future. This region's going to grow by 43 percent by the year 2020. Guess what? That means more congestion, unless we do something. That means a less healthy environment, unless we do something.

You know, that means 43 schools--maybe even more. So, the reality is that the conversation has to begin in the forum that exists. At COG, around the table at COG, there are elected officials from jurisdictions around this region.

Now, the COG board--let me acknowledge Mary Kay Hill, who is president of COG and supervisor of Prince William County. Our board has faced these issues, and they really asked the question: Can we continue to be as we have been, a forum of information, convening, facilitating, for the broad and controversial issues if we are going to be a clearer and a facilitator for resolving some of the pressing issues that face us?

As a part of the strategic planning process, they concluded that some things at COG must change, and that the elected officials in the region have to step forward and play a more active role. They have to get beyond the borders, get beyond the parochialism, and begin to think more regional. And you will see in the coming months, as this strategic plan takes hold, COG reaching out to, you know, all segments of the community to try to be that, you know, great convenor to bring people to the table to start focusing on these issues.

The Board of Trade has done a tremendous job with the Potomac Conference in focusing on regional issues and bringing the players to the table.

Once you get 'em to the table, there's got to be a mechanism for doing something and moving forward. It's not just about discussion. It's about coming to a point where there is a vision, there is a plan, and there is a mechanism for implementation. And I think that's where we have to get to, if we're going to move forward.

K. Merritt: So no longer the expectation of the corpse that Bruce described for us.

M. Rogers: That's right. If you look for a corpse, you might be surprised. We might actually do something. [Laughter]

K. Merritt: Well, who else wants to respond to the question? Scott?

S. York: I'll give it a--because he's got to go to a lower level than that. You know, when I got on to the board and went through the first budget session, my conversion I guess to Smart Growth and the need for growing better was due to the fact our budget. It wasn't because I'm a great environmentalist, or because I get stuck in traffic every day. It was just simply for me it was the budget in Loudoun County.

And as the chairman of the Land-Use Committee, I went through some long-term proposals to help Loudoun County way out in the future. And I was fought by some of the political folks sitting up on that board quite handily, but luckily we managed to squeak by with the votes to do some of this stuff.

So I decided to go out there and run against my friend on that board, the current chairman. And it's amazing what will happen to you when you win with a 73.41 percent of the vote in a primary. People start then to listen to you.

And the problem that you have is the political will is not going to be there, unless the will ft the people is going to be there first. You want to know how many conferences I've attended, and forums like this, and I've bet if I ask--all the politicians that are here listening to this, please stand up. [Scattered laughter]

That's the problem. [Laughter] [Off mic] [Applause] The problem is not her, but it's what she is representing, and that's a very, very low turnout. The politicians aren't going to listen until the people start demanding change. And that's what's happening in Loudoun County.

And it was amazing. Right after the primaries for the Republican Party, there was the state Republican primary for House of Delegates in Loudoun County. And one particular person who was not a help, and does not agree with Smart Growth, all of a sudden became the Smart Growth advocate of the world.

And so, it's got to start from the very bottom, and that's from the people, back up through the political. Because we make the decisions. And until we're going to change our attitude--and I can guarantee you, it isn't going to happen until we're pressured by the people when we see the next election coming.

. Richardson: I agree with what he said. I think that when you look at the political will, sometimes it's not always reflective of what the people want. And I think that that's one of the reasons I'm so supportive of the mayor's Neighborhood Visioning Process that is likely to come out very soon, because it allows people at my level to be able to participate in the process. And I think a lot of times, that's where the disconnect comes, because you have the same players sitting at the table all the time. But the people that are actually being impacted by those decisions are seldom sitting there to help change the way those decisions are made.

K. Merritt: Reverend Edmonds, let's hear from you. I didn't see any maps of churches that we looked at today. Where do churches fit into all of this?

Rev. Edmonds: They're above the maps. [Laughter]

K. Merritt: Above the maps.

Rev. Edmonds: No, I don't totally buy into pie-in-the- sky stuff. I believe in meat-and-potatoes down here. So I think one area that we can immediately impact is workforce development. The jobs that are in Loudoun County--how do the citizens or people in the urban area get to those jobs?

Well, there's transportation problems, stuff like that. Fear problems. I think that the faith-based community can act as a workforce development center to sort of like give the folks in the neighborhood some pre-entry level skills. And by that I mean just the fact of giving some folks in the community within an encouraging environment is the first step. The fear factor has to be dissipated.

And then begin to give them some--I think they already have the human skills. Because if you are existing and surviving in a hellacious area where there's a lot of crime, murder and poor schools, you have some skills. They just need to be redirected.

So, I think workforce development, using the faith-based community, working together to have that arm of the business community to use the faith-based community as sort of a recruitment center--allow us to go out into the community, tap into the community's resources and develop human capital.

There's going to be some problems with transportation. Our church buses cannot make our way out to Loudoun County. They can barely make it out to PG County. [Laughter] So.

K. Merritt: Michael Rogers.

M. Rogers: Let's talk about workforce a moment. I think it's--I agree with Reverend Edmonds. That's an area where a lot of work needs to be done. And COG and the Board of Trade and a number of organizations are working on that issue. But let's not miss what Mario Morino said. We've got to fit the language. You know, we've got to talk to the right people.

And if we raise expectations that, you know, everyone who lives on the east side is in fact job-ready to work in the available jobs on the west side, all we need to give is a Metro pass, or buy 'em a car and get 'em there and it all works, that's not the case.

I think that we need to really think seriously, too, about kind of synchronizing that conversation, and getting the business community involved, and charting those jobs and the skills that are needed in those locations, so that we can do something.

There is something else too: affordable housing. And that's something that was pointed out in Myron's study. There is an issue of affordable housing in this area. And if you start transporting people from one location where they live to where the jobs are, then you're creating another kind of problem in terms of adding to congestion.

And--and--depending on the kind of jobs, it just may not be economically feasible or viable to do that. It may not make sense at the end of the day. So affordable housing around the region is also an issue that we need to focus on and have a conversation about, and do something about.

K. Merritt: Doug Patton, you wanted to add a comment.

D. Patton: Just on the point Michael was saying, just to illustrate it very clearly. Many of you have probably read about the mayor's program in terms of a hundred houses. And 68 of those actually on the Homestead Program. I was told yesterday on those 68 houses, we had 15,000 applications--

K. Merritt: Wow.

D. Patton: --for those 68 houses. I repeat: 15,000. And that's not to say they were all qualified buyers, but even if you take a percentage of--say 10 percent, and I'm sure it was much higher than that.

So the need, as Michael clearly articulated, is--and I don't know where the 15,000 came from. I think a lot of 'em are within the District. I don't know if they came from Maryland or Virginia or Pennsylvania. But there is an issue there on affordable housing, that people do want housing--quite the big challenge is, how do you bring that housing on the market.

K. Merritt: Mario Morino.

M. Morino: I wanted to add to the workforce issue, maybe add--not detract from it, but add another element to it, which is about entrepreneurship. Following this meeting, I'm going up to the Hill for the first presentation of the National Commission on Entrepreneurship in there. We're going to describe that basically, in the last couple of years in this country, since the beginning of this decade, that one-third of the economic growth that we've seen in this country has come from entrepreneurship activities.

And basically two-thirds of all innovation in this country has come from small businesses. I think we can talk about, you know, workplace movement, we can talk about whether we relocate companies. But I think there's enormous opportunity, not just throughout this entire region, but especially in the inner core, of strengthening that new entrepreneurial fiber and growing from within--indigenous growth. And I think it's really key.

And that doesn't mean high-tech. That's across the board. And we can use different tools to do that. And I'd say when we look at our policies and procedures, that should be one of the top priorities we should place.

K. Merritt: Michael, did you have a comment about an earlier--

M. Rogers: Yes, it was a bit earlier. A couple of comments on regional cooperation and also the voice of the people. I mean, one of the issues that we see really strongly is that by and large, the map--the map that we didn't see, the map of all of the new proposed highways for this region--those highways are not the result of the demands of the people.

There are a number of highways that are basically demands of the construction-development industry that will lead to precisely the kind of sprawl that's going to make a lot of the solutions that people are talking about more difficult. And one of our big concerns about regionalism is that it's got to be regionalism that truly embraces new solutions to transportation and not just regionalism that is a cover for making it easier to build these big new roads, because right now it's hard.

There are a lot of proposals out there that basically are designed to do just that. It's to make it easier to build that Western Bypass, and a lot of other roads to nowhere, that, as the articles in the Post describe, become magnets to sprawl further out, and the cycle just perpetuates itself.

So, you know, we need to figure out ways to get the voice of the people who are asking for real solutions, and not just the voice of the developers. And we need to come up with regionalism that doesn't just make it easier to build big new roads. [Scattered applause]

K. Merritt: There's a grass-roots movement in the back of the room.

S. York: He might come to the wedding.

K. Merritt: I just want to take a quick survey of the panel, and then open it up for questions. But what's the issue you would most like to see addressed in a regional way? And let's go right down the panel. Scott, where would you start if you could command some sort of regional powers here to start the conversation, what's the issue you would pick? Can you pick one issue?

S. York: Well, I would have to say for Loudoun County it's to be able to right now pay for growth, and to be able to manage it in a way that solves the problems for Loudoun County.

K. Merritt: Michael Rogers.

M. Rogers: More effective coordination of transportation, planning and land-use. I mean, that's a big issue. And COG has developed along with the Transportation Planning Board a regional activities centers map. And that shows 181 activity centers where there are, you know, a certain number of jobs.

You know, aside from the question of whether it should be 181, you know, on the map, the fact is that there are a lot of existing centers where future growth could be channeled and investments can be made and to curb the sprawl that currently, you know, is unchecked.

Well, there is not a mechanism currently that that will happen. So, I'm not talking about regional government, anybody. [Laughter] We're talking about an effective mechanism for coordinating land-use and transportation. And other regions have accomplished that through compacts--you know, the Compact for Sustainability in the Bay Area, through the Council of Governments there, there's been the state law in the state of Washington that gives the Council of Governments there certain responsibilities for growth and growth management. So there are solutions that can make sure that happens.

K. Merritt: Brenda Lee Richardson, where would you start?

B. Richardson: I think I'd start with the jobs. I think that that's sort of the key to everything. And since Scott is calling hypergrowth "madness," I'd like to see some of that madness come on the east side starting at the river. And ultimately, I'd love to see a Silicon Valley in our community to spur some growth, and also that entrepreneurship, Mario. Can I call you? [Scattered laughter] Okay. That's what I'd like to see.

K. Merritt: This woman knows how to network, even when she's up on stage. [Laughter]

D. Patton: Yes she does, Kathy, I would agree with that.

K. Merritt: Doug Patton.

D. Patton: Well, I'm sort of torn. I can give my more parochial answer, and I agree with Brenda. Being a D.C. resident, official, et cetera, I think the main issue is jobs for D.C. residents. I mean, that's the first from a parochial standpoint.

But the second thing from a region--and I think Michael already stole my thunder--I think it's really transportation and below that is land-use. I think transportation's the major challenge for the region, and how to deal with that.

K. Merritt: Reverend Edmonds.

Rev. Edmonds: Well, I think workforce development and jobs. I think there needs to be the creation of at least 1,000 affordable homes for working-class families who make between $20 and $45,000 a year that will ease the run to get houses out in PG County.

I think there needs to be a dedicated fund for youth in our schools. Schools need to stay open beyond three, four p.m., have quality education, things of that nature, until six or seven p.m. And I'm talking more than just athletics, stuff like that.

So I would say workforce development, affordable housing for working-class families, and a dedicated fund for our youth--in particular, investment in the public schools.

K. Merritt: No surprise. That's the WIN agenda.

Rev. Edmonds: I'll put it out there. [Laughter]

K. Merritt: Right. Michael Hirshfield, how about the Chesapeake Bay Foundation?

M. Hirshfield: I'd echo what a couple of people have said, that to us it's really all about transportation and land-use. They're two sides of the same coin. We may be spending money on mass transit, but we really don't have an integrated mass transit system that is focused on moving people effectively. And we need land-use reform that makes it tougher to pave over farm fields and wetlands and forests in the country and easier to redevelop in the city.

K. Merritt: Darlene Mickey, Arlington County Schools.

D. Mickey: Well, obviously, they're all so interconnected, it's hard to separate out any. But wearing a school board hat, I would go back to Mario's statement about all the different efforts that are out there on job training and say we need to coordinate that.

We need to better know what the need is throughout the region, and we need to know then how we're going to train people for specific jobs, or the basic skills needed for employment at some level. But all of us running around looking for the right thing to do, instead of talking together and talking with the employers is a waste of energy.

K. Merritt: Mario Morino.

M. Morino: I think it's the regionalism itself. We had a board meeting last night, and the topic of that board meeting was that we believe--and this is a very well representative set of people from the region--that the majority of intermediary organizations have been eclipsed in their purpose. That includes our Potomac KnowledgeWay, the Board of Trade, the tech councils, the chambers.

Life has changed so fast, whether we see it or not. There is a new economy. The Internet has had such a profound change. We have demographic issues that are changing. And what we have to question is the very infrastructure that we turn to for advice today.

And I would suggest that it is regionalism that gets to the core all of the issues. And what we have to do is forge a new leadership that allows WIN and the 1-2-3 Club to sit at the same table, that allows Michael and a trade association to sit at the same table. And we get a diverse and inclusive leadership to guide this region. [Scattered applause]

K. Merritt: Myron Orfield, did you want to add to that?

M. Orfield: Sure. I think that you've got a variety of needs that I think in the region from the different types of communities in the region I think that move toward a common table. You've got cities in the older suburbs in one sense that are experiencing a loss of some part of their population to the newer areas. A lot of these places would like to maintain people in those areas.

Some of the areas at the edge can't cope with how fast the growth is occurring, and can't pay for it. There's some common themes there in the region that thinking together or cooperating together, can help recycle a little bit some of these older communities, and take some of the pressure off of the new area. When you're doubling in land area and increasing a third in population, you're a little bit out of whack.

And in the region as a whole--the taxpayers have to think about whether they want to pay for the infrastructures for a whole new ring of development when there's a perfectly good one that's being left behind.

The business community has to think about solutions that will get people to work, wherever they are. And also to keep a long- term workforce that's strong. And schools that are strong throughout the region. They have that interest.

And I think particularly in the business leadership that you're seeing in Silicon Valley in California, they're beginning to realize they have to participate in that, too.

So I think the various communities recognizing--the 50 percent of the region that is beginning to feel stress, some loss of capacity, the 50 percent of the region that can't cope with how fast they're growing--it would be nice if they could talk together about these problems. It would be nice if the business community could help design transportation solutions that actually reduce congestion, or at least make it work a little bit better, because those data core in America is the I think billions of increasing capacity, and the congestion keeps getting worse.

And I think there is a way to begin to talk about that together. So land-use and transportation, the various types of community bringing their interests to the table in a very real way.

K. Merritt: Well, now it's your turn. Let's take some questions from the audience. And I'm sure there are many questions from the audience. So let's start around this side. Tell me your name and if you're here representing a particular organization.

Participant: My name is Calvin Hawkins. I'm here representing Prince George's County Executive Wayne Curry. And like you said, Ms. Mickey, we have the same situation in Prince George's County as you mentioned in your presentation--that our schools in the older communities are down.

But what Mr. Curry has done--we have only built two schools in Prince George's County in the last 10 years. Now, we're prepared to build 26. And like Arlington, we're going with the community park concept, use communities in this during the day, build schools. So where you have schools during the day, community centers in the evening. So we're working towards that.

Then there's revitalization going on in the Inner Beltway, which is our older community. But Reverend Edmonds, my question is to you. Working with your counterpart in Prince George's County, IAC, just like you're there involved with school issues, and you brought up about workforce and the need for public schools to stay open longer.

But I also challenge you, as our colleague in the District of Columbia, to start working with your colleagues in the faith ministry, because we do believe the faith community need to do more, and play a more significant role in bringing about the kind of change that's in this great divide. You all need to open up your churches more, and get more involved in what's happening in the community, instead of really just closing and going out to where we live.

I'm not saying you're doing it, but your colleagues--

Rev. Edmonds: Well, I'll just say that I live in the District. My wife's a public school teacher. My son goes to Dunbar High School. And our church doors are open. The problem is it's a structural problem. The capacity of churches cannot measure up to the structural problem that we face.

That's why people are talking about regionalism. Churches are doing all that we can do, I think. Some could do better, some are doing worse. But it's a structural problem. It's a structural evil. And as we collaborate and partner with the business community, you know, I think we can hopefully come to a solution.

But I take your advice and you can come to the wedding--[Laughter]--and be part of that.

K. Merritt: We'll take a question over here. Tell us your name and what organization you represent.

Participant: I'm Ed Rissey [ph], and I'm with Synergy Planning. And this is sort of my business, and I think that almost all of us here enjoy Myron's maps, and have been familiar with them over the years.

I think it's important to note that the map that most of you are talking about and most of you are concerned about is not a map that Myron drew. It's a map that's drawn by those folks that Mr. Hirshfield talked about, which are the real estate interests. And if you go to what Mr. Rogers talked about and look at the map that COG is using to look at the year 2000 conceptual development plan - - and then if you were to aggregate those jobs in 10-mile radii, what you'd find is that this long bar here represents those that are in the core and within 10 miles of the core.

And this isn't what it used to be. This is what COG is projecting for 2025. And so that problem that we all saw when we saw Graphic 36 on the wall is actually a false issue.

We're really still a very job-centered region, and we will continue to be, according to the municipal plans which COG has interpreted in the material they sent to the [Print ?] Station Planning Board on the 14th of July. It is still very much a job- centered region.

And so our problem is a whole lot easier than what you were thinking just a couple of minutes ago. We've got--but where we really have to end up is with real data and, as Mr. York said, the real people have to start reading and understanding the real data, and then we'll get a real change real fast. Thank you.

K. Merritt: I'm not sure everybody can see your map. So you're saying that job growth is projected to be in the center of the map here?

Participant: This is a 10-mile radius which is approximately the Beltway. This is the number of jobs just in the northern part of Virginia. I have another one, if you'd like to see it, of the entire region. But just within the northern part of Virginia. And that's how much goes on within 10 miles, this within 20 miles, and this within 30 miles.

Ten miles is the Beltway, 20 miles is Reston, Rockville. And out here, where we need to develop balanced communities with jobs, housing, services, recreation and amenity in Loudoun and Prince William, et cetera, there are some out there and they need to be. But the great majority of them are here.

And you know what we've got? We have a $10 billion transit system that gets people to those jobs. This is the area that's served by that $10 billion transit system. Let's start using it.

K. Merritt: Michael Rogers, let's get you to respond to this data here.

M. Rogers: Yes. I think that our guy here probably might be able to help me on this. But I think that concentration is the actual number of jobs. And what we focused on is the percentage of growth in jobs in the outer regions that will draw people to it. It's no question that--

And I think that as the report points out, there is a strong concentration in the, you know, inner suburban communities and in the core of jobs. The District has 24 percent of the regional workforce. It's not as large as it used to be, but it's still just about a quarter.

And then you look at Fairfax, you know, the Tyson's Corner area, you look at areas, you know, closer into Montgomery County. So, he's right, in terms of actual numbers of jobs. But in terms of percentage of growth, I think that that map shows that the percentage of growth will still be higher in Loudoun and in Prince William and in the outer suburbs.

K. Merritt: You didn't talk, though, about transit very much. Anybody have any thoughts on investing more in Metro? Nobody's brought that up anywhere along the way. Doug Patton.

D. Patton: Well, I think the District--most of you probably read. We're committed to the new New York-Florida line on the Red Line, which was announced I guess it's about three weeks ago now. And that's a commitment of--a $75 million project which the mayor as well as the private developers signed a historic agreement. They're going to put up $25 million. The District wants to put up $25 millions, and the Feds will put up $25 million.

So that's a combination of what we're trying to do more in terms of public-private partnership. And so, that transit part we're moving on, and perhaps there will be other ones further out New York Avenue down the way.

K. Merritt: Michael Hirshfield.

M. Hirshfield: Just a comment on transit. We think there are huge opportunities for development associated around the Metro system. It's not just adding new stops. There are places now--Ed knows the list--there are places now where you can go to meet somebody to have a beer or a conversation after dinner. You go to the Metro stop, you've got to get in your car to drive to some place to simply have a drink. And, you know, that's just a simple metaphor for the lack of development around so many of our Metro sites. There are acres of parking, but no other infrastructure.

D. Patton: To amplify that point. A certain percent of the vehicle miles traveled have nothing to do with work. It's going to the dry cleaners and going to the grocery store, et cetera. So that there's more development around those Metro centers, and that's a way to allow people to take the Metro, drop off their laundry, pick it up when they come back, or whatever. More activity around there. So that's a sound development direction.

K. Merritt: More questions. I'll come over here.

Participant: I'm Sandy Hillyer with Metropolitan Strategies. And this question is for Mr. York. You talked about the need for the citizens to light a fire under the politicians before they take action, which I fully understand. But I'm reminded of an observation of Neil Pierce that local elected officials aren't elected for foreign policy.

And when they light a fire under someone sitting on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, the response might be, understandably, to reduce allowable build-out. But that might exacerbate the problems of your neighbors in Prince William or someplace else.

How can you--do you have any proposals for how to translate pressure on local officials into something that's beneficial for the region, as opposed to potentially not so?

S. York: One of the things that I worked on last year was bringing a group of various jurisdictions from around Virginia. And we kind of call ourselves "The Virginia Coalition of High- Growth Communities."

Yes, what we do will impact our neighbors most likely--those to the south as well as those to the west of us. And what we need to do--and I was hoping that both Prince William and Clark and others would participate in this particular group. They have chosen not to at this time.

I think, on a regional level, again, we need to do the same thing. But the problem is right now, I have to govern and make choices right now for Loudoun County, and I hope that the choices we make will also strengthen the region. But I would propose that essentially we would do somewhat the same thing which has been done with the jurisdictions throughout Virginia to join this coalition - - that there would be another coalition of the communities up here, through northern Virginia region and Maryland and D.C. to work on some of these problems.

K. Merritt: Aren't we talking about making a link in a lot of people's minds between their problems and the region's problems? I mean, Brenda Lee Richardson, when you're working with welfare recipients, do you think they really care about regionalism?

B. Richardson: No. No. I mean, and that's one of the problems and that's why I think that there has to be this balance. Because you have TANF moms, or parents who are looking at how I'm going to keep a roof over my head, or how I'm going to be able to provide food to my kids.

And regionalism is not high on their priority list. [Laughter]

K. Merritt: But should it be?

B. Richardson: Personally, I think it should be. Because what--I feel very strongly that what happens in the District affects everybody else. And I think that we've got to begin to understand who we are and where we are, and begin to appreciate how we can make connections to help each other. Because it does us no good if the core is sick, because ultimately that sickness will filter out to our other people that are working out in the regions.

And I think that we have to take a serious look at that. I think it is important for them to start looking at that.

K. Merritt: And Mario Morino, when you're talking with your business colleagues, are you thinking about, you know, the people that Brenda Lee Richardson is working with?

M. Morino: Am I? Yeah. Yes, and we can prove it.

K. Merritt: I'm not asking for proof, I'm--

M. Morino: No, but you asked my question--

K. Merritt: --making the statement. [Laughter]

M. Morino: The average guy is not. And I think one of the big benefits of this report--I'll tell you in the last three weeks, there have been a number of board meetings, both nationally and here. And what I've been stunned at is the disconnect.

What I mean by disconnect, the disconnect of a leading business person's mind as to what's actually happening in our inner cities and even in our rural areas. I mean, the best example I can give, which is a horrible example, but we were in a meeting. And an example was given about how to be more inclusive with a particular program.

And one chairman of this particular meeting, which will go nameless, named an example. And he said--he came from a Wall Street firm, by the way--he said "Well, I have a partner who's Chinese, and I can emulate to that." [Laughter] [Voice: Wow!]

Is that typical? Not totally. What I do believe is taking place, though, is that the new economy--you referenced California being very experienced. Some of it is as good as you said, some of it is not. There's a mercenary practice that's right now about which you don't see.

And we have a chance to overcome that here. And I think there is a new leadership evolving. Now, is it profound? Is it emergent yet? No. But there are people like Mark Warner, who is actively doing things around this region, there's people like Jim Kimsey [ph], with a net worth of $2 billion that's now opening a pocketbook to get involved in the District. You have people like Russ Ramsey [ph] and Manny Friedman [ph] from FTR [ph] who care inherently about the future of the District.

You get people like Doug Koh [ph] with a deep Christian background, who is now working on how to bring resources to the District. I think there is a beginning. it's not there, but it's a beginning. Is it widespread? No.

I think this report has to be taken and systematically presented to every business group in this region.

K. Merritt: More questions. Let me take you back here. I'll do what they tell you never to do in radio, and that's hand your microphone to someone else. [Laughter]

Participant: My name is Karen Kenny. I'm a program officer with the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation and I'm a resident of Northern Virginia. Mr. York, you talked about the will of the people, as opposed to the will of the elected officials. and you've talked a lot about disconnect and need for shared vision and needs to educate the average guy.

Well, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to try a shared visioning and consensus-building process, like they've done in Chattanooga, which they've now extended regionally? I mean, if we're going to talk about educating the average guy, I mean, I think we know a lot who are in this room. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. But my next-door neighbors may not.

And so how do we build that interest in the faith community, the business community, the schools, the elected officials, the civic associations, the environmental groups? I mean, how do you go about creating this shared vision for this incredible region that dos have two states and a state-city? How do we do that?

And is there--do you really believe now that there is an interest among the average guys to do such a process?

S. York: Yes. I believe there--well, again, I have to answer from Loudoun County's perspective. What happened in the last two years is you had a group known as Sustainable Loudoun Network that kind of formed itself.

The interesting thing about this group is that they are probably from all perspective of the political realm, all dealing with one issue. And they try, when they enter into a meeting together, to leave politics out, because they know they'll start arguing about who's to do what, and who's the best to do it.

But they have actually helped out. In my primary process, they were very active. Spotsylvania, when they saw what Sustainable Loudoun Network was doing, that some of the politicians there actually went out and formed a group.

The Spotsylvania Board appropriated some funds to actually help this group to begin. And the reason they did that is because if we are going to be effective in changing the minds down in Richmond, we're going to have to be effective in getting the people to help change the minds in Richmond. And as I said, it was interesting to see the changes that happened as a result of the primary.

Had we won by only 2 percent, I doubt it would have mattered much. But things have changed in the minds of some of our delegation because of the size of the--[audio break]--

K. Merritt: Other questions? I'll go back up this way then, come up over here.

Participant: I'm Glenn Howard with the Fannie Mae Foundation. I heard Kathy's first question and the question from my colleague from Cafritz, and I am not hearing a lot of answers. The question is even if we are all embracing, and we are in this room embracing the new religion of regionalism and we believe it, cause where do we go from here, Kathy asked. Is it one conversation, is it many conversations? If we are going to wait for the will of the people to well up, it could be a very long wait. How about some political leadership? How about some political leadership?

The question again I would like to hear some answers, and perhaps some experience from other parts of the country, some best practices, is where is the conversation? Who owns the process? Who leads the process? Who starts the process? Who continues the process? How long does it take? Not just where did it start, but then how does it continue beyond the first pep rallies and the good feelings. Who is going to take charge of this process and see that it works?

K. Merritt: Okay, let's see who answers that one. [Laughter] Michael Rogers, let's start with you, and we'll get some answers on this.

M. Rogers: All very good, the questions. I think that initially there are several conversations. I think there are several places where that conversation needs to take place. I spoke earlier about the strategic planning process that the board of directors at COG has gone through. And the board's commitment to kind of open the door in the process in a way that has not been done before in order to assure that all the players are at the table.

So the board will begin there within the purview of what we do at COG. I think that it's very important that the conversation at the Board of Trade, the Potomac Conference, you know, continue.

I think that you know the faith community has a role to play in this. It may be in leading the way in affordable housing development that is needed. That's a conversation.

But in the end, if we are going to have one vision, those conversations are going to have to go to each and every community, as a unified effort of the leaders within the community to hear what the people say, and try to get people to--to hear what they say, I mean, to let people tell you that, no, they don't like sitting in gridlock on 395, that they have better things to do with their time, and they wish you would do something about it. I think people will tell you that. I think if you listen to talk radio--if you had listened yesterday, when a very prominent person was speaking on the subject of transportation, he heard from the citizens, along with a few elected officials who talked with him too, but they were giving a piece of their mind about how they feel about really the inaction in solving the transportation issue. You can deal with commuter or traffic litigation only so much. I mean, you can--the commuter connection and all of the other things we do will only reduce traffic so much, so that you feel as though it makes a difference.

At some point--at some point a real plan has to come together for the future. And Bruce Adams talked about a regional compact for--work for development as a part of the regional job initiatives out of Greater Washington. It's tough to talk about regional compacts on anything in three states. But at some point just maybe the real conversation that must be had is one where there is a set of policies and principles that are agreed for on both sides of the river, and the State of Maryland and Virginia and the District agree through compact to act in a certain way in their local government, and for Richmond and Annapolis to allow them to do it.

K. Merritt: Brenda Lee Richardson, you had a comment?

B. Richardson: Yes. I would just like to quickly share that the metropolitan dialogue, who was funded by Fannie Mae and Cafritz by the way--[Laughter]--we have sort of started that process on a small scale. We are a group of people who are people of faith. We get together once a month and we talk about these issues. Two of the issues that we continue to talk about are welfare reform and regionalism. And I think that the thing that intrigues me the most about this group is that, number one, it allows a person east of the river to sit at the table with the president of Riggs Bank, Tim Coughlin right there. And it allows us to have an opportunity to understand each other's view of the world, if you will. And I think that it's very critical that we position ourselves to do that, because when you look at both you guys that are moving from welfare to work, you can't expect people to just get up one day and go to a job. You can't expect people to just--Oh, I've got to go get a job out in Loudoun County--not to pick on you, Scott. But it's a real issue. And I think that dialogue is critical, but you have got to have dialogue that is going to have the mechanism that Michael talked about to make something happened. But I am a strong believer in relationship building, because if you don't have a relationship with both the region will continue to be divided.

K. Merritt: Myron Orfield, what have you seen happen in other regions? How have these conversations started, and what's been the mechanism to continue them?

M. Orfield: Well, I think an important part of it is having information to begin with to talk about the conversation. And then you need to have groups that can go out and reach out to the public officials. Public officials have to lead, they have to have information.

I think predominantly in our area, the twin cities, where we have a lot of regional reforms in place--we have metropolitan tax-base sharing and land-use planning and a variety of other things--it's been predominantly a movement of local officials. Probably the most powerful constituency is that local officials have come together and sorted these out. They haven't always agreed. There's been some intense controversies in these issues. But the local officials have to be educated and have to be moved. They are often moved by advocacy agencies, advocacy groups. The Citizens League in our area is a very important group, and it was funded by philanthropy. And the Citizens League was allowed to take on regional issues and educate on regional issues and become involved in controversial regional issues. And sometimes there is a hesitancy about support when entities get into some degree of controversy when not everyone agrees. And I think it's important that groups like that, the Citizens League is predominantly supported by business as well as philanthropy.

In the Oregon experience where they have done a lot of things--they have the Thousand Friends of Oregon, which has again been allowed to reach out to local officials and build solutions between farmers and all these other groups.

Local officials--it's a hard thing to be a local official. They don't pay you very much to be a local official. You have a lot you can do as a local official. You are constantly, particularly in the suburban area, you are dealing with closer margins in terms of your staying in office. City politicians often have an easier time at that, myself being a city politician.

But I think that they often are full--their lives are full of just keeping up with what they have to do. They need information. They need people to reach out to them. And you know my experience with regionalism, it is predominantly about local mayors and local city council members and local school board members and those people, they form the coalitions that accomplish things. They have to be educated about these things, and then they lead once they have the time and information support they will lead. There are a lot of leaders in the country I think. But they can't do it all by themselves.

Then you need groups that can generate public attention. You know, there is so much--one of the things that there is so much of what we talk about in America is reform that deals with isolated instances. You know, the environmental movement of the country now is a lot about buying land right now. You get together a big pot of money and you buy land. Well, you can't buy enough land to deal with these issues. Well, we'll build an apartment building or rebuild an apartment building in the inner city. That doesn't--you know, that is not dealing with some of these larger structural things. I mean, that's a lot of what we view as a public agenda, Americans buying a piece of land, a tremendous extent, or rebuilding a series of apartment buildings in the central city.

It's more about dealing with these broad systems and engaging. I believe--I am very confident about the public officials of the country. I think they are very capable. And particularly in the local level, they are not in it for the glory--they don't want to be president or governor particularly. They want to do a good job. But they are overwhelmed. It doesn't pay very much, overwhelmed with demands. If you are running for election all the time it is tremendously stressful. They need information and they need groups that can participate in a dialogue to change underlying systems, not enhance anecdotes.

K. Merritt: Let's hear from another elected official, the only elected official in the audience here, Mary Kay Hill, who is with Prince William County.

Participant: Thank you, Kathy. Prince William County is--I'll just give you the big defining factor about Prince William county, because it's a statistic that is much higher than any of the other local jurisdictions: 43 percent of our households have school-age children, as compared to the average of I believe 27 percent. We have lots of kids, and they are very expensive, as you all know, those of you who are parents. And the issue of providing services for our families and the ability to do that is something that is impacted greatly by the way that we grow.

We know that we are going to grow. I think the issue for us is how we do it. Prince William County has worked very, very hard to refine its documents, its planning documents, our strategic plan, our comprehensive plan, our zoning ordinance, and all the other--our capital improvements program, all the related documents to form a legally defensible framework and a process that we can go about redefining growth in our area. And we have made great strides. We have created a rural crescent to prevent sprawl. We have drastically reduced the number of townhouses, lowered densities where we could. On the other side of that, on property that is already zoned, we have 50,000 units that are already zoned. They are through the planning process--down-zoning. And I think a lot of jurisdictions face a problem with scale zoning. We have looked for changes of circumstances where we could accomplish some down-zoning. And you have to be very careful because you know the courts don't look at how progressively you are thinking. They base their decisions usually on precedent and the procedure that you follow. And so you have to be very, very careful.

We initiated a huge down-zoning last year, and of course we have a big lawsuit that we are facing with that. But we are very confident in our ability to deal with that.

But Virginia is a Dillon Rule [?] state. We would have done more, okay? But what happened with what some of the things that we wanted to do--the development community ran off to Richmond as fast as they could get there, and our initiatives were squashed. And it is the ears in Richmond that somehow that we have to reach, at least on the Virginia side.

For Scott--and I know you know exactly what I am saying--but for your group, for that coalition, we felt in Prince William--because you said Prince William didn't join--that we did all that we could in a realistic way to work within the system that was there, and not to do anymore than we thought would harm us. It is like trying to hit people over the head with a hammer and they are not going to respond very favorably to you. So I think that we have in Prince William come a long way. But we do need to work more closely together and figure out ways that we can do that that is a win-win for everybody. But I think it's--the fact that we have got to get to in Virginia is dealing with the General Assembly and the business folks. Okay? We asked this question in our COG strategic planning retreat. We all know that to attract good business we have to have a good quality of life, and that's what you want to be able to offer your employees. So when these developers are running off to Richmond, where is the business community that wants to accomplish something much different from what we all want to accomplish. Where are they when it comes to facing those legislators? That's a voice I think that needs to be heard in Richmond as well, and I don't know that--I don't believe that's happening. And we need that voice.

S. York: Here, here.

K. Merritt: Applause from all the Virginians.

M. Hirshfield: And a Marylander.

K. Merritt: Other questions. You had your hand up for a long time.

Participant: My name is Chris Miller. I am president of the Piedmont Environmental Council, on the steering committee for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which is a regional effort of nonprofits in this area. And also I'm on the board of the Virginia Conservation Network. So I wear several hats, all relevant to the situation.

A couple of thoughts. One is Myron's work on socioeconomic issues is very helpful. Two things we shouldn't forget: we have some of the worst air quality in the region now, and the projections for sprawl will make it worse. And we are already running up against serious issues in terms of water supply. And so there are some physical constraints that need to be added not the analysis ion addition to the socioeconomic ones.

A point about Metro and the dislocation of jobs from where we have infrastructure capacity. The public officials from Northern Virginia, the business community, has come out in favor of raising taxes to build more roads and some more transit. They have not looked hard though at the real problem, which is that where we have developed is away from where have capacity to serve that development. And if you go through systematically and look at the Metro stations in Northern Virginia, it's not just a matter that we are not utilizing them, we are actually encouraging investment in places that are far away from them. So there is a real disconnect, and that has to be addressed specifically.

One last point on what are people doing, and designate the difference. I have about 600 members in Loudoun County, and I do think that the public understands this. If you look at polls, what they say is 80 percent don't want any more traffic congestion; 80 percent understand that local and state officials have to do something now to manage growth; 80 percent want a cleaner environment; 80 percent want good jobs; and 80 percent want lower taxes. They get it. [Laughter] And they also get that the change in decision-making has to be on land use. Very, very strong polling numbers in Virginia showing that 75 to 80 percent of people understand that we need to make better land-use decisions.

So I think it's not so much a matter of not knowing where to go; it's a matter of having the political courage to do it. And we are here to help you, and we look forward to working on that in the future. [Applause]

K. Merritt: We've got time for just a couple of more.

Participant: Thank you. I'm Tim Coughlin of Riggs Bank, and I have a question. The question is addressed to Michael Rogers, but it's also to Bruce Katz, and it's an extension, Kathy, of your question, where do we start. I think what Brookings is doing, first with Carol O'Cleireacian's, "The Orphan Capital," and now with this "Region Divided, The State of Growth in Greater Washington," is contributing to the intensity and the clarity of the dialogue that can cause regional cooperation.

And this is actually my question, and I am going to bring in a member of our region, and that's the federal government. And the federal government obviously impacts the District in many way. One way is in taxes, because the District cannot charge a nonresident income tax, and they have limited real estate taxes because government buildings and embassies are not taxable.

But, on the other hand, they offer tax incentives, and there are two on the table now, and this is what my question addressed. The Senate Finance Committee has just approved--and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is working very hard on this in the House--the extension of two provisions. The first is the extension of $5,000 first-time home-buyer tax credit. And the second is even more powerful, and that is taking for new investment the zero capital gains tax, and extending it from poverty zones and making it District-wide. And, Michael, my question to you, and Bruce to you, is: Is this something that Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments can undertake in their conversation to support on a regional basis? And, Bruce, to you: Is this something that the Brookings Institution could look at in terms of its regional impact?

M. Rogers: Two very important issues, and I think it's something that we will take to our board, we'll discuss it, and see how we can be supportive. Because I think that would make an important contribution.

COG supports member jurisdictions collectively, and sometimes individually; so it's a matter of taking a look at this issue. But I think it's very important. We could be supportive.

B. Katz: Yeah, I guess I have a couple of responses. One is that Phil Dearborn has taken a look at some of the impact of the first-time home-buyer tax credit. I think it's very important for the federal government, not just with respect to the District of Columbia, but with respect to central cities and inner suburbs in general, to start focusing on targeted tax investments to stimulate home buying and to stimulate private sector investment.

I think though the federal role in this region goes beyond these general urban initiatives. It is a super employer that over the six to eight years it has downsized its work force and has shifted a portion of its work force to the procurement and purchasing of services. And as Steve Fuller at George Mason has shown, a lot of that purchasing of services has gone out. So in some ways the federal government has helped decentralize this region, even though the only thing they talk about is how they are investing back in the District. The real story is a lot more complicated.

So I think when we have our conversation with our federal neighbors going forward, in Democratic and Republican administrations, Democratic and Republican Congresses, I think we need to have a full conversation with the federal government about how they impact this region. And we need to talk with them also about information. They have an enormous amount of information that is spatially disaggregated, that gives us a very clear sense of what's happening in all these different parts of our region. They have not really played a very positive role, to tell you the truth, in making that available in ways that it is accessible. [Applause]

K. Merritt: Let's take one more question. I have totally neglected this side of the room. So anybody on this side who wants to ask a question?

Participant: Hi. My name is Tersh Boasberg. I am chair of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, and we are a willing 501[c][3], so if there are any foundations in the room that would like to promote this kind of advocacy,--[Laughter]--I would be delighted to speak with you later.

One of the interesting things that are connected to us is that when we did oppose the Disney project in Manassas the reason was because it was beyond Metro--it was impossible for District residents to get out there and to have jobs, in addition to some of the other factors.

It seems to me that the federal government probably is not going to take the lead in regionalism. Congress is not known for that. I am wondering about whether the jurisdictions here would be willing to sit down and discuss the apportionment of the federal grants that go to the region. There are grants for school districts, there are obviously transportation grants, grants for pollution, grants for planning, grants for housing. It seems to me if all the jurisdictions could sit down and apportion these, perhaps on the basis of need, population, whatever, that that might be a start without necessarily having the federal government direct it.

K. Merritt: Any takers on that question? [Laughter] Come on you guys. Doug Patton?

Participant: Yeah, Doug, absolutely. [Laughter]

D. Patton: You were putting Michael on the spot so many times I just had to--

K. Merritt: You're trying to help him out. [Laughter]

D. Patton: Tersh, I probably agree with you. I don't think the feds are going to take a leading point on regionalism. But I do notice some change--and you are aware of some of this in terms of the GSA, Park Service, HUD, Department of Labor, on some of the things we are trying to do specifically in regards to the Anacostia River, Anacostia across the river, as well as the Navy Yard. So I think they are at least starting the first stages of interest in what's happening. And they're like everyone else in terms they have to deal with the problems everyday because they live here, you know, whether it's taking the Metro or being on 95, or trying to get someplace to--all the qualities of life.

So I think we--it 's important that we at least bring them into the discussion. But I don't believe they are going to be a leading advocate.

Now, the second part is whether you can get the feds into the process or for the region to meet with them. I think that will be a tougher political issue in terms of Maryland, Virginia and the District, because you are going after, quote, "monies," and when there is money on the poker table some people react very quickly to their own self-interests in terms of winning that pot. So I think that's more problematic, quite frankly.

The other thing is I wanted it--I noticed some of the--and it's not going to answer your question, but I think it should be addressed here. And I am glad someone brought up the federal involvement, which is a key component that is lacking here on our discussion today.

The second component I think is important and they are here today, and that's the media. And I think they have to take an integral part on how they deal with some of the issues that are out there on an everyday basis. And whether it's putting more reporters on it, or more concentration on it, I think that's what has to be said.

I frankly think the people that are at the head of the--the elected officials on a lot of these issues, quite frankly, and I think that was demonstrated by my boss, Anthony Williams, winning last fall. And I will be the firs to say when I heard about Anthony Williams going to run for mayor I was somewhat skeptical, and I changed very, very quickly. But I think it was because the people were out in front of that train--and Reverend Edmonds was there as well in front of the train. So I think that's what--but the media has to at least focus on interest in a lot of the stories that are taking place that I think that haven't seen it that much.

K. Merritt: Well, if you could let me get in a shameless plug--[Laughter]--I'll tell you that a big excerpt--maybe 20, 25 minutes worth of this panel discussion will be on our show, Metro Connection, on Saturday morning at 11 o'clock, so we are helping in any way we can.

But Michael Rogers had one more comment to make.

M. Rogers: I wanted to underscore the point that the federal government needs to be a permanent stakeholder at the table on discussion of regional issues, because it's just not about the District. The federal government's presence in this region is so prominent that it affects all of the communities in the region.

There is a D.C. task force in OMB, and there has been a point person dealing with District issues. Perhaps either the mission should be broadened or there should be a point person dealing with the national capital region, so that we in the region would have a person and a place to go and make sure that they're at the table as we discuss issues about the future of this region.

K. Merritt: Please help me thank our panel up here this morning. [Applause]

B. Katz: Please also help me thank Kathy Merritt.

[APPLAUSE AND END OF PANEL DISCUSSION]

B. Katz: I'm going to ask the panel to sit for just about 10 more minutes, because this has been the easy part of the session up till now. We now have the difficult part for someone to try to wrap it all together and tell us what we are supposed to do. And there is only one person that's probably capable of doing that, and that's Alice Rivlin. [Applause]

A. Rivlin: Thank you, Bruce. I don't know why Bruce welcomed me back to the Brookings Institution by giving me the impossible assignment of summarizing this very wide-ranging discussion in a very few minutes. But he did.

I discovered this morning that I must be a very well educated person, because I am moved by statistics, and I am moved by the map that we saw this morning. I think it gave a knew that there were divisions in this region, and that there are distressed areas and that there are very affluent areas. But the picture of the East-West divide seemed to me to be a new focus. It is not a central city-suburb question; it is a question of parts of our central city being distressed, and some of our older suburbs having many of the same problems. And they happen to some extent--we are stretching it in a few places--to fall along an East-West divide.

Now, somebody early in the panel discussion raised the real question: Why is this happening, and what can we do about it? Distressed parts of the region are getting more distressed, and people are fleeing from the distress. They are fleeing to Prince William, they are fleeing to Loudoun. But the real question is, What can we do about that?

Now, we talked a good deal about shared vision as though that were something very difficult to achieve. I submit that it is not, that probably if we took a poll in this room on the panel and around the room we would find that we already have a shared vision in the sense of what would we like to see happening here. I think we would like to see improvement in many dimensions in the District areas of our region and more growth there on the east side if you will. That's going to mean better schools, more affordable housing, safer streets--all of the things that will not only keep people from fleeing to the outer reaches of the region, but bring people--and not just young singles and retired couples--but families with kids back into those neighborhoods.

Now, from the point of view of one who worries about the financial future of the District of Columbia, along with Doug Patton and some others, that is the key to a vital central city. It isn't jobs, though jobs are part of it. It really is residence. Frankly we don't care where they work, as long as they live here and pay taxes here, because if they live somewhere else we can't tax, as somebody pointed out. [Laughter]

But the District of Columbia has, along with the older suburbs, enormous potential for turning around this fleeing and having and attracting people who for various reasons want to live nearer the center.

But the other part of the shared vision is what about the periphery, the edge? There is a shared vision there too I think. People in Loudoun and Prince William want growth, but they want slower growth that can be managed, that does not do as much damage to the green infrastructure as somebody said that leaves it--leaves the possibility that things people move to Loudoun and Prince William for will still be there in a few years to be enjoyed. And we all want a transportation system that works better, less congestion, cleaner air. So I think we could spend--this talented group could get a shared vision real fast and endorse it.

The hard part is affecting change. And as Michael Rogers and others said, we have had lots of talk. We have had lots of meetings. We can discuss these problems across the traffic. The problem is making something happen, having a mechanism for affecting change. Not that I am knocking talk, or a dialogue, as Brenda Lee said, you have to know the people or you can't anything done. You have to share something about your perception of what life is like across these divides, or nothing happens. What we are against is not talk; it's just talk. And unfortunately we have had too much just talk.

Now, I share the view that we are not going to get metropolitan government anytime soon, so I don't think we can--it would be fruitful to talk very much about that. It's like some of the unrealistic expectations that Mario talked about. You could spend a lot of time talking about how it would be great to have a metropolitan government. But let's not start there.

So I am going to reject the marriage analogy--[Laughter]--and sometimes--I think we need to start with a series of successful relationships, not one-night stands--[Laughter]--but successful relationships that solve problems.

In the international community, in the dark days of the Cold War, there was a lot of emphasis on what was called confidence building--just finding some little thing that you can do together across what was an East-West divide, and get it done, so that you convince yourself that there is some possibility of doing something.

So I think what we need to do is identify some specific problems on which there is consensus that something needs to be done. And I wouldn't start with the big ones; I'd start with sharing some training facilities, special education for kids with real difficult problems. It's probably something that could be talked about and shared across lines. There are some crime problems in which we need to work hard--some of this is happening--but across jurisdictional lines. Dirty air flows across, and we need to work very hard on that. Sewage flows across. Cleaning up the Anacostia is a multi- jurisdictional problem, and we need to do that. Examples of things that we all know need to be done that are cross-jurisdictional, what we could actually do and say, Hey, we did that, we know we can work together, let's move on to the next one.

Transportation is an obvious need for not just coordination--Michael talked about an effective mechanism for coordination. I for one think we probably have to move beyond that to a metropolitan transportation authority with some ability to--with some resources and some ability to make decisions.

And there may be other areas in which a specific cross-jurisdictional authority which--dare I say it?--a tax power, might actually get something done, or revenue-raising capacity--tolls and that sort of thing.

We have had a lot of discussion about jobs, and clearly the focus must be there and on affordable housing.

But as we look at those kinds of functional areas in which we need to cooperate, that's sort of one conversation. The other is looking at these--the distressed areas in our jurisdiction themselves and revitalizing them. That is not going to happen if we focus one by one on transportation, affordable housing, jobs, schools. That has to be a place-based focus that does all of those things at once. And some of that is going on also. But we need to take areas of the District of Columbia, areas of PG, and areas of Arlington, and say, What are we going to do to revitalize this whole area and make it a more attractive place to live and be and work? And people aren't going to move there unless all of the things are happening at the same time--the housing, the schools, the safer streets and the more job opportunities. And that has to involve again public-private partnerships, the faith community, the federal government as corporate citizens, not just as government, but the feds as big employer and corporate citizen in the area.

Now, a lot of people said political will is the key, and clearly it is, and the words "political courage" was also used. And I think having our elected official who had the courage to come today is quite great. [Laughter]

But that clearly is right, and it is a chicken-and-egg problem. Unless the citizens speak out and say, We don't need you to do this--politicians aren't going to hear it. But unless politicians speak out and say, We can do this--nobody is going to think they can.

So I see a kind of double track here, taking some soluble cross-jurisdictional problems and solving them, and at the same time the place-based focus on developing our more distressed areas and planning smarter in our high-growth areas that is going to get us to the shared vision that I believe we all have.

And if everybody in this room today thinks about what can I do on these several fronts to help make it happen, we will have something important growing out of today. Thank you. [Applause]

B. Katz: Just two logistical items. The transcript of this forum will be on the Brookings Web site at the end of the week, www.brook.edu. You can't get away from any meeting without referencing the Internet--[Laughter]--just another indication of the changing economy.

And also, all the underlining reports by Myron, by Marge Turner and her colleagues, by Phil Dearborn and his colleagues, will also be up on our Web site by the end of the week as well.

There will be a short press availability in the Somers Room, which is where? So walk out, take a left--if you miss it, someone will tell you where it is. Again, I want to thank all of you for coming today. This is obviously not the end of a conversation, it's very much the beginning of a set of conversations. And we said that we can be helpful. Brookings would like to continue to play that role.

Thank you very much.

[APPLAUSE AND END OF EVENT]