Massachusetts Viewpoint; City Politics

[Host] Good evening. Tonight the discussion of Massachusetts Viewpoint is on "City Politics," a book written by Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson both of the Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard, published by the Harvard Press and the MIT Press. Our format tonight is a little different from other Massachusetts Viewpoints in that we are focusing on a specific book. But our intention is both to deal with the book and how it applies in concrete terms to Boston and other metropolitan areas. To discuss city politics with us tonight we have then a mixture of people from the academic world and from practicing politicians and others interested in the legislative and political process. Around the table I have Mr. Thomas ?Moesha?, Head of Community Development Department of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Christopher ?Ionella?, Boston city councilor who is chairman of the council's Urban Renewal Committee and is a past president of the

council, and Mr. Henry Pratt, an instructor in political science specializing in urban politics at Wellesley College. Let me turn first to Mr. Pratt and ask him to talk about "City Politics" the book as a book and as a study in political research. Mr. Pratt, what does "City Politics" do in terms of increasing our knowledge about city government and city politics? [Pratt] Well this book was published just last year. And that means that it came out only about six years after the publication of an article in The American Political Science Review entitled "The Lost World of the Municipal Government." The author writing at that time was making the point, among other things, that the study of local government had reached a low ebb. That there was very little interest in the subject, that most political scientists were devoting their attention

to affairs at the national level or the international level, and that this was a subject which very much needed attention. Since that time, this article was published in 1957, there has been a remarkable change in the picture and a great increase in study of urban problems and metropolitan problems. I think that this book by Banfield and Wilson represents a major landmark in that movement. It is in the first place the first book that I'm aware of which attempts in a highly systematic way to bring together information dealing with a large number of cities, not just a single city, but a number of cities. We have had other books in the last several years which have focused very fruitfully and very helpfully on a particular metropolitan area. For example there was Edward Banfield's very

informative and very stimulating study "Political Influence" which dealt largely with the politics of Chicago. There's also been a major analysis of the government of New York City entitled "Governing New York City" by professors Wallace Sayre and Herbert Kaufman. There has also been important new books come out on politics in Detroit, Cleveland, and a number of other major areas. But as I said the Banfield and Wilson book represents a truly remarkable attempt to bring together a large body of information. [Host] Good then our job tonight really is to take a book that is rather general in its outlook and apply it to a specific city, a far better procedure than the usual, namely talking a great deal about a specific city and then trying to generalize. I think the advantage of the people we have here tonight is our ability to draw

from the general to the specific and talk about the metropolitan area of most concern to us: Boston. Maybe I ought to start the process of exposition here so that our listeners will have some sense of what the book says, then later on we can get into some of the more controversial positions of the book and see whether or not among us there is consensus that Banfield and Wilson have something to say or not. If we were to look at Boston or any metropolitan area we would have to say that we are witnessing a major change in the city, not simply as a political creature, but the city as a place where people live. Certainly if you're going to summarize what happened to the city since World War two, you would have to talk about a great influx of people from the farm or from rural areas to the central city. You'd have to talk about absolute population growth in terms of increased birth rate, decreased death rate, and so forth. You'd also have to talk

about the fact that there's been a tremendous technological change in the city. First the development of railroads is obviously long before World War Two but the development of the automobile as having a major impact on what the city is like. To put it more mundanely the development of the septic tank is making it possible for people to live farther out from the center of the city than before. A number of these things have drastically altered the shape of the city. Well what has happened then? There's been a dramatic increase in the population of the urban areas. And this expansion has pushed people outward from the central city into suburbs. This expansion out toward the suburbs is first necessary just because of the increase in population. Secondly it's possible because of some of the technological changes we've just mentioned and because of people's increased affluence, they can now they become middle class many of them, now they can

move out financially. And third it's desirable for a number of psychological reasons, at least people think it has been desirable for them to leave the heart of the city and move out. Well this, if you take this as a thumbnail sketch of what has happened in the city, the job of the book "City Politics," or the job that we have here tonight is to ask what impact have these broad trends have had on the politics of the area? One of the things that Banfield and Wilson say is that it has had an impact of this sort, that it has changed the politics of the city from a, what he's called a private-oriented kind of politics where everyone is out pretty much for his own self-interest, to a public-oriented one where there is more emphasis on middle-class values of principle, of serving the general good, and so forth. This I must say is a point which we will undoubtedly find some disagreement on but I'm simply stating at the moment the

authors' point of view. As a specific of the change from private to public orientation, Banfield and Wilson point out the change in many metropolitan areas from a ward-based politics to an at-large system. Mr. Arnell, I wonder if I might ask you to discuss the shift from ward-based to at-large-based politics in the city of Boston. How do you view its impact on the politics of the city? [Arnell?] Well Mr. ?Seeshulls?, first of all may I say that the people of the city in 1948, I believe it was, voted the plan-A form of government which means that the councillors and the school committee people would be elected at-large and prior to that time the councilmen were elected by wards. And I think that the people who are elected by wards had a more provincial attitude about their city. I think there probably was a great deal of pork-barreling going on

during that time, in other words one councilor would say "look I'd vote for your project out there in West Roxbury if you will vote for me in ward 1C in East Boston and get me a swimming pool." And as a result these councilors were acting only not so much for the greater good of the entire city but what was more important to them was what was good for their particular area. And now under the plan-A charter when all of us have to run citywide among 700,000 more or less of the residents of the city of Boston, I think that we have a more cosmopolitan, broad attitude about the city and we tried to do what we feel is for the general good of all of us. And I think this is a better system. And I think that it's worked that way. May I say too, in conjunction with what you mentioned about people leaving the city at one time as you know Boston was an area, it was a city of close to 1 million people. Today we've been reduced to 700,000 and this has been due, I think, to probably the

ward type of politics, people lost faith in the government. People felt because of the high cost of the government, the confiscatory taxes that were in existence at that time caused particularly young people who were getting married to feel that where were they going to settle and they always looked to the suburbs because the taxes were much lower at that time. And that's why of course the city of Boston has been reduced to the size that it has. But I think if we study this problem closely we will find that people are beginning to come back to the city. They're beginning to realize that there are many services which the city gives to them which the outlying communities cannot give and I'll be glad to speak about that a little further on in this program to broaden out this idea. And this is what I-- and I feel that this plan a out of this nine- man Council idea of being elected at-large is for the greater good of all the citizens of our city.

[Host] All right fine. The trends in population that we've already spoken of have raised two problems. In the central city it has meant that the central city has become, in many respects, the dumping ground for the poorest people, the people who are discriminated against, and so forth, not thinking necessarily of Boston so much as other metropolitan areas. The central city, that is the city that gives the name to the whole metropolitan area, has become the place where Negroes and Puerto Ricans are to be found in far greater proportions than their total amount in the metropolitan area for example. And in any case people of low incomes find themselves there. As a result a lot of persons have become concerned about the increase of poor housing and living conditions in the central city. At the same time the move to the suburbs has meant a tremendous fragmentation of political power in the metropolitan area. As we all know

the suburbs for the most part are independent municipalities, each with their own vested interests and many people seek them out for this very reason because they have their own independence and so forth. As a consequence, in both the central city as a unit and in the metropolitan as a whole there has been increasing concern about how in the world do you control the processes of city life? In the central city how do you control such things as housing blight? In the metropolitan area how do you control anything because you're dealing with 60 or 70 independent kinds of governments, each with their own private interests? Well one answer is planning. In a central city, a city planning agency. In the metropolitan-wide area, a Metropolitan Planning Agency. We're fortunate in having Mr. Thomas ?Moshe? here because metropolitan and city planning have been his prime concerns in his role with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Mr. ?Moshe?, what do Wilson and Banfield have to

say about planning? What do you feel are its prospects in the Boston metropolitan area? [Moshe?] Thank you very much Professor ?Seeshulls?, as to the authors, they make a fairly good case for planners, the need for planners, the need to adopt the planning process. But I think more important, they make the case also that planning cannot be undertaken in a vacuum. Planning must appreciate the political, the sociological factors prevalent in the community. As to the question of where do we go from here, what are the possible solutions to the problems of the core city, as you spelled them out, or the problems of the metropolitan area, I think it's important to stop for a moment and reflect upon the factors that created this problem. As the councilor pointed out, Boston, a number of people since the war have chosen to leave Boston, to go to the suburbs, to find a place in the sun, to find a barbecue pit, to find a place to breathe. As a result of this they have left

fairly old housing and the housing was in a position where the lack of sophisticated political processes had permitted it to deteriorate, to become blight. So as a consequence it's very attractive to the medically indigent and the welfare cases throughout the entire commonwealth. Consistent with existing welfare laws, this is the only type of housing that most of these people can afford. So in essence the city of Boston then became home, if you will, for the low income and the very high income and as professors state in their book, the high income were influential at one time but their dominance in local politics has decreased substantially and they play a very little role. In fact as one professor called them they are "limited actors" in the political process and any analysis of any political community suggests that the middle income person, the person in that salary range where he has problems he's facing in his community with his children at school, he is the one who participates in the mainstream of community life. This

person for the most part does not exist in Boston. He's chosen to solve this problem at the town meeting in some suburban community which further accentuates the problem and deepens the vacuum. So there is a need now to translate the problem of Boston, not only as its own problem but as a responsibility and a of problem the entire metropolitan area. The density per square foot, per square mile rather, the amount of people living in this highly dense area, their demand for services, certainly they have an independent structural relationship with the government. But in terms of getting along with their neighbors, they are extremely dependent one upon the other. So we must attempt to develop a a stratagem in which these people can realize they have this dependency problem and that they can only by analyzing their own assets, appreciating their deficiencies, planning for the future, and hopefully together can provide the necessary leadership or planning for the future where the situation can be corrected and also

within a modicum if you will of tax rates. [Pratt] --jump in here. You've been talking primarily about the needs of the residents of a city for planning but you haven't said very much about the structure of the planning organization in Boston, whether you think it is the way that it ought to be set up. The reason I asked this question is that the authors of the book have a chapter devoted to what they call "master planning" and it raises a number of problems that I think we may want to spend some time on this evening but one that comes to my mind right at the moment is whether or not the authors are talking about Boston when they charge as they do fairly frequently here that planners have been not sufficiently sensitive to the political realities of the city, not sufficiently sensitive to the feelings and attitudes of the people who are affected.

Do you feel that this type of analysis applies to Boston? [Moshe?] I think it has general applicability in any metropolitan area and in any core city. Having had some experience of the city of Detroit as well as in the city of Boston, I find this indictment to have extreme validity. Fundamentally I think it's important to realize that planning as a discipline of, or if I may call it a subsidiary study of political science, has not come into its own until the post-war period and as a result of this we have not developed the sophistication within the process or even of the academic level of an understanding that you cannot separate planning from the political process. And now even more so from the human process. Now we're developing a new concept in which we not only consider the political structure but the attitudes, the environments, in which people will play a part in this new city will bring to bear such as ABCD Action for Boston Community Development, which is a human planning agency. So that the authors are quite right in pointing

out that this is a problem. But I think I want to-- in defense of the comment I made, I want to revert back to say that the only people who can pass judgment on the effectiveness of the planning process in the city of Boston are its residents primarily or the other community actors, as the authors choose to call them, such as the newspapers, civic agencies such as ours, so forth. And yet as I said. We're a two-type community, we're very well-to-do and we're very poor-to-do. The poor-to-do have enough just keeping care of their own problems, the well-to-do just don't care. [Pratt] Well you mentioned the two cities of Boston and Detroit. And I think these are good examples. In Detroit you have an independent city planning commission which is charged with the responsibility of drawing up a master plan for the city and and attempting to get this master plan enacted. In Boston you have quite another arrangement. If I'm not mistaken, the Boston City Planning Board has been now incorporated and has been for the last decade or more

incorporated in-- directly into the urban renewal process and the rehabilitation and redevelopment. [Moshe?] For the last four years, three years, four years. [Pratt] Now it seems to me this is an extremely important difference. In the one case where you have a completely independent agency, another place an agency which is fitted in not only related to urban redevelopment, urban renewal, but also responsible, at least indirectly, to the mayor. How do you feel about that? [Mr. Moshe] Mr. Pratt, I think I can answer that in two ways. One of them I say I completely subscribe to the thesis that a planning agency should be independent, that it should be somewhat removed from any specific line function of government, that it should be sort of an umbrella agency looking down upon every facet of the community. But I think Boston has a unique problem and I think in retrospect is perhaps the only way to look at it. This town suffered from a lack of construction unequaled in any large city in the world. It went through a period subsequent to the war in which there were no major

construction of any type downtown. And during this process the mayor at the time, Mayor John B. Hynes and various civic leaders and planners felt that there was something that something was necessary, some psychological stimulant was necessary to get people to invest in Boston. There was a high tax rate, there was a rather slack and slovenly enforcement of building procedures. So in this time someone suggested that there were these 33 acres of land in the Back Bay area which had potential industrial redevelopment. This is now the Prudential Center. At that time though the tax rate was so prohibitive that if a piece of commercial property was assessed at full market value at a $100 tax rate, a developer was in fact paying for his building twice in 10 years. So some sort of inducement, some mechanism, some vehicle, had to be created to permit this one person to commit an investor's money. We had in Massachusetts then a vehicle which in effect gave him half his answer, namely Chapter 121-A of the general laws which is so called Limited Dividend Urban Renewal Corporation Law which suggests that if you involve

yourself in the renewal process then you may then select and choose to get a reduced tax burden, if you agree to accept a limited return on your investment. But this applied only for current residential property. Prudential came in and felt that they could not invest the hundred million dollars in Back Bay on the concept that they would pay a hundred dollars tax rate on a full market value of 100 million dollars. So this arrangement, this law was subsequently amended in which it established that the-- this is the 121-A, chapter 121-A could be applied for commercial purposes. But the attorney general of the Commonwealth said that this then becomes a redevelopment project. There must be some measurement, there must be some value, there must be some criteria for determining that this is blight. So in essence to bring all of this together to motivate the whole community, to eliminate as many legal and structural frameworks, structural bottlenecks they created, they turned around and took the planning board away from its independent status

and they made it a function of the Redevelopment Authority and that's where it stands now. [Ionella?] But Mr. Moshe, Banfield and Wilson point out that this idea of a master planning is brand new and even the planners themselves don't know much about this problem, they're sort of feeling their way through. I mean let's face it they haven't had too much experience. Take in Boston, it's only been a resurgence of this city within the last five or six years. So what's happened here? You're suggesting for example that these planners be independent. Unfortunately I don't know whether Banfield and Wilson take a different approach as that but on the other hand the federal government gives this city, those of us in the city government, the responsibility of passing on these matters. We have a condition precedent to pass upon these and so we have to have some say about it. So how can the-- how can the planners be independent of the politicians, as it were, they just can't be. The federal law won't permit it, for one thing. Take the Government Center, to be specific. You saw what happened there. There was a

tremendous controversy about that. Hullabaloo about it. There was much debate on the subject. I think-- I took the position that the government center was essential for the city of Boston whereas five of the councilors said "no this Government Center shouldn't go there, we don't need it, there's a deal here," and therefore they knocked it down. Now this is tremendous power that the Boston City Council, in particular, has and every other council all over America for that matter because the federal law is the same, it's applicable all over the country. And so what's happened? You can't disassociate yourself completely from the politician. Maybe you're right. Maybe utopia should be that the planners should be away from the political influences but I'm not so sure that, after all it's the man in public life who is close to the people, he knows their pulse, he knows what they want, and we can't have some starry-eyed dreamer, for example, who wants to plan a city in a certain way which is

impractical to the needs of a community. And so the practicality, the human aspects, the compassion point of view of this program is necessary and I think that you get that through the men who are close to the people and they are the men who have to run every two years for public life. And I think that they're both essential and frankly they have to work together for the common good as Banfield and Wilson points out. [Moshe?] Counsellor I didn't mean to create the impression that I was-- I wanted to put planners in a vacuum or put them free from review. On the contrary the point I was trying to make was that planning is a process only in the fact that it has an advisory influence or an advisory capacity. The ultimate decision in any political process, and here I'm in complete agreement with the authors, is that it should be done by the elected officials. But nevertheless we must recognize that the complexities of modern urban government are such that we have now

got to develop. It's a fundamental principle, we have to develop it, that we are now dealing in rather sophisticated disciplines and rather sophisticated problems of city government and that we must attempt to get those people in those lines and staff functions within the city structure who can provide us with this direction. But I want to emphasize that the ultimate decision is that of the politician and I don't use the word politician in any derogatory way. [Ionella?] Not only that but they have-- I wish that some of our listeners could come to a hearing of the Boston City Council with particular reference to urban renewal in the city of Boston. And when you see several of the antagonists go at it, Mr. Logue sometimes probably wonders whether he did a good thing to come to Boston at all. [laughs] But on the other hand I think that this controversy that goes on, some of these fellows take the attitude that they're probably cross-examiners, I'm not so sure that it isn't good for the public good because it keeps these planners on their toes.

[Host] Mr. Ionella, I wonder if I might pick that up and ask this question since we're talking about the interplay of planning and politics. Workable programs are fine when you're have an application before the Urban Renewal Administration in Washington. But what happens to them ultimately, doesn't the fine hand of politics get in there somewhere? In other words what effect on the workable program of the Boston Renewal Authority has opposition at the grassroots I would say in Charlestown had or the threat of opposition in South Boston had? [Ionella?] Well Mr. Seeshull? first of all I think this is true of nature and human nature in general that people are interested in the status quo. They don't like change. This has been my experience in the 14 years I've been in government. No matter how good it is for them they are opposed to change. And then when that change does

happen they recognize and they realize how wrong they have been. So the same way with urban renewal. A lot of people don't want to be uprooted. I was uprooted, I used to live in the West End, I know how difficult it is I know the emotional complications to this problem, particularly with old people and I can sympathize with them. But on the other hand this is an old city, it's a blighted city. Our tax base has constantly gone down. We cannot afford to remain static on this question. We must go forward and the only way that we can do so is to take advantage of the federal funds that are made available to us under the Federal Housing Law of 1949 and recently amended on several occasions. Now with respect to Charlestown, first of all I don't know about Charlestown in specific, there's nothing before the city council. We know that some people are opposed but let's look at it specifically. Mr. Collins says "Charlestown, you should have an urban renewal." There's been tremendous controversy yet he just came out of a mayoral election. His opponent said "I'm

opposed to the urban renewal program for Charlestown, the people should be left alone." And yet if you analyze the votes, and this is one way of doing it, you'll find that Mr. Collins took Charlestown. There's nothing before us with respect to South Boston. Mr. Collins is supposed to be the exponent of the Urban Renewal Program in the city of Boston. He was reelected by an overwhelmingly majority-- big majority. His opponent has been constantly opposed to the Urban Renewal Program. So I'm not so sure that the people of Boston are really opposed to this problem of urban renewal. [Host] Let me just press a little farther on that then maybe we'll turn to some other subject. Mr. Wilson, one of the co-authors of this book says elsewhere, not particularly in this book, that urban renewal obviously is properly subject to political pressures and that the pressures are getting to be such that the following priorities are emerging: that the best place for an urban renewal program to get started is where there are no residences or businesses, let's say the waterfront, Atlantic Avenue. The next best place is where there are no residences and

marginal businesses, let's say the Government Center, Scollay Square. The next best place is where there are indeed residences but the people are, because of low income and so forth, poorly organized politically, let's say the Negroes in Roxbury and Dorchester. And then finally you attack the places where there is high political organization and where you think you may not succeed, let's say the North End. Do you think that's a fair analysis of the kinds of priorities we're seeing actually emerge in Boston as a result of political pressures? [Ionella?] I disagree entirely with that because that's not the case in Boston. We've had tremendous pressure in the West End. I was in the legislature at the time for example, but what we failed in the effort. We failed in that endeavor to maintain the West End. The urban renewal program in the Washington Park area that you referred to, the negro area. We put that through and there was some opposition but most of the people in the city in that area wanted it.

The only place we're going to have some opposition is Charlestown, as I see it. With respect to what Banfield and Wilson say, that we should have urban renewal in those areas where there aren't any people, that are vacant, there are no such places in the city of Boston for the simple reason that Boston is small in area. That's why our tax base is shrinking constantly and we have to make available every piece of land that's there and this is one way to do it is through urban renewal. No, I say that this question of urban renewal must be faced up to. We have to make tough decisions. But those of us in government recognize this-- that we can't please everyone, I believe in the old adage that he who will please all pleases none. And I think this applies even more so to this question of urban renewal. And these decisions must be made for the good of the city. Even though some people will suffer by it. [Host] Okay let me interrupt right now simply for the benefit of any of our listeners

who may have tuned in after the beginning of the program. This is Massachusetts Viewpoint. I am Dr. Bradbury ?Seeschuls? director of political studies at the Lincoln Filene Center at Tufts University and moderating a program on city politics using as our focus a book by that title by Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson. We have around the table discussing this book and discussing politics in the city of Boston a number of persons who are experts in the academic field of urban politics and who are skillful practitioners in practical politics in the area. Dr. Henry Pratt of Wellesley College, Mr. Christopher Ionella city councilor of Boston, and Mr. Thomas ?Moshe? of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Well with that interruption, let's continue. I see a written note here next to me from Mr. Moshe. "Can I make one comment?" Go right ahead.

[Moshe?] The comment I want to make alludes to the observation that you made concerning a statement by Professor Wilson as to how we select urban renewal communities or how we select urban renewal projects, rather. I can't help but thinking that as the professor says the political pressures certainly play a dominant role here I think in Boston and in some of the surrounding communities, perhaps more appropriately in Brookline, that political pressures have suggested areas which perhaps the planners have not wanted. Have suggested areas where due to one reason or another the urban renewal administration has not looked favorably upon and also has attempted to use urban renewal as a political vehicle rather than as a process of improving the city. [Ionella] Why don't we be specific, where are the political pressures exerted that urban planning has now been put into effect, which as a practical matter should not have been, let's be specific, which? [Moshe?] It's a very good point, councillor. The point I'm trying to make is that there are occasions when through the combination of pressure groups within a community that urban

renewal is injected into certain areas where that if a more pragmatic appreciation were made of the process and the amount of financial contribution and the amount of public investment it could be found that these funds could be more appropriately and more well-received in other areas. I give you a case in point the suggested renewal of certain areas in West Roxbury which suggest that we should take down certain wooded areas and build 221 D3 housing. For those who don't know what 221 D3 housing is, this is a new process in the urban renewal laws which permit low-income-- rather low-interest, loans to developers to provide so-called relocation housing. I think that perhaps-- [Ionella] Let me say this and maybe I misunderstood your comments. The point I'm trying to make and I want to give our listeners the impression that first of all take the Boston City Council and even in fairness to his honor, the mayor. Every program we have acted upon have been those programs that have been recommended to us by the planners.

By the Boston Redevelopment Authority. These are the experts. No program in the city of Boston to my knowledge in the seven years I've been on the Boston City Council has been initiated by the council in the beginning, nor by his honor. These have been programs that have been submitted to us as a result of studies, and as a result of planning, as a result of a large expenditure of federal and private state and city funds so that I don't want to give the impression to listeners when we say political influence here that say that we of the Boston City Council wanted the South End streets, or we of the Boston City Council for political motivation wanted the Castle Square, or the Washington Park. That isn't true and I stand to be corrected on this program. [Host] Let me interrupt lest this program become an hour not on city politics but on planning per se, urban renewal, fascinating as that subject is to all of us. Mr. Pratt, Banfield and Wilson have something to say about the role of ethnic loyalties and so forth in city politics.

The old city, city at the turn of the century characterized by strong ethnic loyalties including, all including Yankee of course. Is this politics a politics of the past? Maybe we can refer not just to Boston but to places like New Haven and so forth where studies of city politics have been done in some depth. [Pratt] Well this gets back to a point that you were making, Mr. ?Seeschuls? earlier in the evening where you were remarking that we're in a period when our big cities are becoming increasingly influenced by middle-class values and as a part of this change there has been a considerable modification, a change in the way that local politics are set up. The classic pattern, pattern which prevailed at least for a century up until quite recently was it won a decentralized political

system with power resting heavily in the hands of Ward and precinct leaders, sometimes with a local political boss who could bring together a large pocket-- a large number of small pockets. This was a structure of politics very well-suited actually to the assimilation of immigrants because it gave them a sense of identity with the community, gave them a sense of being a participant in the local affairs of the city, and it gave them a number of more tangible benefits such as welfare and other types of things that they very much needed. Now we have been in a period, particularly in the last decade or so, where these old types of political structures have begun to decay largely as a result of the fact that lower income groups are now moving up into middle-income status. Now there are a couple of

consequences of this that I'd like to say a word about. One of them is that at the very moment when our political machines are not the strong, powerful entities that they were at one time, we have a new type of newcomer, a newcomer to the city, namely the Negro. This is not quite so much a problem in Boston although we've had a very dramatic evidence of Negro unhappiness recently. But it certainly is a problem in cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York and so forth where the Negro feels in large measure left out of the political system. Indeed Banfield and Wilson at one point in their book, and this is a point that they come back to several times, say that the Negro stands to gain from a political system of the old type and that one a result of our new type of middle-class politics is that the newcomer no

longer has a ladder, a political ladder, to climb up on in the same old way. I think I could say more about this but the recent Boston school sit-out could be analyzed in somewhat these terms as an expression of a widespread feeling of alienation, a widespread feeling that decisions were being made without proper consultation with these newer residents. [Host] Mr. Ionella. [Ionella] May I say about this, may I have a comment about this with respect to the immigrants and the idea of the ward boss, the political strong-- political party on a local ward basis? I take some exception with Professor Pratt and also Professors Banfield and Wilson because I think that people are better off really if they are not

subject to this idea of a strong Ward community political atmosphere. In the old days, I came from the West End, for example, there was a real political boss there by the name of Martin ?Lamazini? and I never got to know him, I never had the pleasure of knowing him and yet I followed that district in the legislature. I think it's fair to say that if I had lived in the days of Martin ?Lamazini? that probably I would never have been elected to the Massachusetts legislature. The people elected me because I probably wouldn't have allegiance to a boss. I don't believe in it even though I'm a Democrat by political party and yet on the other hand I believe in the independence of the individual. I think that people are better off today than they were in those days, if in those days if you didn't do what the ward boss told you or the strong guy of the political ward party-- and they knew how you voted,

there was no merit system, or the civil service idea system wasn't as strong as it is today. They would make sure that you would be let go from your job, which is wrong. And I have a certain measure of success in Boston, the people of my city at least have been kind enough to elect me for four consecutive terms, I think that it was an independent judgment of theirs that if I depended on the ward bosses I wouldn't be where I am today. And I think that this is a representative government belonging to the people and this is the way it should be. And I don't believe that that's a more ideal situation, I think that people are getting away from that. It makes them more independent of the politician. And some of the benefits like Professor Pratt referred to about getting welfare benefits. These are benefits that these people are entitled to, whether they have ward bosses or otherwise and people today know their rights much more than they did 40 or 50 years ago and this is good for America.

[Host] I wonder if I could raise a couple of things that came up early in the program. I break in at this point to do so because I think we may lose track of the main thread of the book "City Politics." That thread is that middle-class values of politics, this public orientation, do what's good for the general good rather than for specific private interest. The theme of the book is that middle-class values of this type have triumphed over earlier forms of politics. This is a theme which I think needs some exploration because I think it betrays a rather serious bias. Banfield and Wilson at another point talk of the middle class in these terms, that they aren't by any means so publicly oriented, that it's the middle class for example that will vote time and again against any legislative pay raises or anything that smacks of increasing taxes. That in fact the strong powers for real welfare programs are the very

poor who don't pay taxes and the very rich for whom paying money isn't that crucial, their money isn't as marginally important to them. Well this brings me back then to the characterization of Boston that Tom ?Moshe? used earlier as a city of the very poor and the very rich. This may not be so bad. It also raises a question of urban renewal, is it not urban renewal essentially a program-- and metropolitan planning for that matter-- that has been pushed by the very rich in the metropolitan area? Are these not the people who at least want to act in the general interest whether or not their view of what the general interest is is correct or not? Mr. Moshe. [Moshe?] Part of that answer to your question is that I think that if I may say the haves have now realized once again that they have got to play a role in this process, that they're developing a sophistication and a realization that we are involved in a rather significant community problem such as urban renewal, or disposition of welfare cases, or land values, or zoning, or transportation.

And so now they have chosen to use either their own family names, their traditions, their reputations in the communities, also their business concerns and their influence on the newspaper to play a role. I think it's also terribly important to take a look at the comment about middle class values in the light in which you project them. We talk about that the middle class normally is the group that votes against pay raises. It's also the middle class that votes an awful lot of money at town meeting for public education. It is the middle class group that defends education, I'm not trying to suggest for a moment that I want to attack education. I think that education is one critical area. I think education is one critical area where I think we ought to look more prudent in terms of finances. This is a very significant problem and some of the South Shore communities. In the town of Scituate over 65 percent of the tax rate is for educational purposes. We still look at education as a "my town" problem which I'm sure we choose to ignore it as a regional problem. We don't want it as a regional problem, we're afraid that we may

end up lowering or even degrading the standards of our education. We have certain power structures within our PTA, all of which act as an effective barrier if you will to resolving or attempting to resolve this problem on a regional approach and I think-- [Pratt] --concerned then about inconsistencies within the middle class ethos, that at the one hand they're willing to give certain aid for certain kinds of education but on the other hand they deny legislators the kinds of compensation that they ought to have to do a good job. [Mosher?] One classic example is right now I've been literally working night and day on this problem attempting to create some sort of a public understanding and recognition that we are now involved in an area-wide transportation problem. There's not just a problem of South Shore. It's a problem facing all of the 78 cities and towns in the standard metropolitan area. I went to a meeting in which I frankly believed that I was involved with people who were decision makers, at least not

perhaps in the Boston within the political infrastructure, but at least in their own communities, their representative town committees, representative boards of selectmen. People I thought that in their respective communities had a measure of say and I spent 20 minutes advancing this thesis of an area transportation system and how we could do it, what it would cost, the approach we have to take. And as I left the room I was asked by one person, a person I have an awful lot of respect for, "Is there anything we can do right now to keep one train running?" So this is the inconsistency I talk about. [Ionella] Well look at what's happened in Somerville, I mean talking about pay raises. The legislature in its wisdom last year has given the cities and towns of this commonwealth the necessary home rule which I think we're entitled to on all these matters, but specifically since the question of a pay raise-- in the city of Somerville, which is even larger than the city of Cambridge-- it's over a hundred thousand people, the councillors in that city were getting a salary I believe of 400 or 800

dollars a year. This is ridiculous I don't know how do you expect these men to give you a good public service on that pittance for a salary. Comparable city but it's even smaller than that, say Cambridge, councillors under the proportional representation form of government there get $4000. And since the legislature gave the various councillors the right to raise their salaries, the Somerville people gave themselves a raise from $400 to $4,000. And you saw the mayor I understand signed the legislation so that it became effective. But now because of the howls and the protest, righteous people in the community said "this is too much of a raise, $4000," and I understand that they have voluntarily rescinded this. Now frankly I believe this: that if you want good public service you should pay for it. And actually it means nothing on the tax rate.

And I say this in all honesty and I think that I have a record in the Boston City Council of being a conservative but on the other hand I feel that people should be paid well and there's no reason why men in political life shouldn't be paid well. And I think this is wrong on the part of people to take the attitude that they do and they encourage graft and corruption by doing this. [Host] This is an interesting point of view and I must say one that I heartily concur in. Isn't this really a reflection of what Banfield and Wilson were talking about, a rejection of the paid politicians and the salaried politician in local suburban communities. A feeling that politics is something you must give in self-sacrifice. That in any case it is a service thing, it's not a political matter and so forth. [Ionella] You can't give any more of self-sacrifice because most of us are not independently wealthy, we don't have any independent sources of income. I

have for example I'm under constant duress and pressures from every group in this city. I get it from the Catholic community, from the Jewish community, from the Protestant community, every social organization looking for a contribution. For example to be specific I said to one lady once as she was looking for a contribution from me for an agency of hers or rather one of the civic organizations which were about five miles from where I live in the city of Boston, and I said to her "unfortunately madam my name doesn't happen to be a Rockefeller or Jesse James" and I said "why do you constantly call me on this matter?" but frankly I finally had to give her a contribution of five or ten dollars, whatever it might be because she was constantly calling my house and this is the sort of pressure that we're getting all the time. Now, how can I possibly I have four children and a wife to support and I get $5000 with it, if it wasn't for my profession as a lawyer I couldn't possibly support my family on that

kind of money. And people say "well you don't give much of your time." Well my only answer to this is simply this: those of you who don't think there is much time, then you ought to run for this job. But it isn't enough to run for it. You ought to get elected and see for yourselves what the job entails. When people call you at seven o'clock in the morning, when they call you at 11 o'clock at night, when you have to make many appearances all over the city. These are part of this job and these are necessary part of the job and if you don't do it you don't stay in office very long. What I'm trying to say to your listeners, professor is that this job of the city, of state, of national government is a 24-hour operation today. [Host] I don't think you'll get any disagreement on that around the table, although our listeners may disagree. Mr. Moshe? [Moshe?] I wondered, Doctor, whether I could ask to you and or Dr. Pratt some observations as to how the young student coming through school-- is politics an attractive field to him?

Is there increased increased interest in the study of political science-- I'm a political science major? Do we feel that many of the stereotypes or impressions of politicians are being assumed by this college student, high school student? Is he developing his own individual character? Is he attempting to find out if there's more beyond a legislative salary or is there more beyond an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the governor's council? Are these key issues? I mean generally is there a feeling from the academic community that political science is becoming a sophisticated discipline and that we can look to the next generation at least for some participation? [Ionella] May I make one comment Mr. Moshe, with respect to that, and I say this to your listeners in a very humble way. I went to Boston College and the Harvard Law School. But I want to say that I have-- and I want to tell this to the young people of America that the greatest education I've learned is when I became a member of the Massachusetts legislature in particular and also a member of the Boston City Council.

It has enhanced my knowledge and my education immeasurably and I would hope and pray that more young people follow the example of going into public life. [Host] Mr. Pratt. [Pratt] I know Mr. Seeschuls? could probably elaborate this a little bit more than I but the situation at Wellesley College is rather interesting, sort of paradoxical in a way. What we try to do, the members of the political science department, I think is to stand in a somewhat intermediate position between the student and the events going on in the world outside. There is a real problem I think for the college student who thinks that you can understand everything just by reading the newspaper every day. Actually some of the what's going on in the world is a good deal more complex than that and we've been very pleased recently in the last couple of years by the great increase in the number of students at Wellesley who are signing up for political science courses and taking a real interest and indeed majoring in

this field. One the other hand I think there's some cause for concern in the sense that the amount of interest in local government, state and local government, is not what it ought to be. This is something that I've worked very hard on since I've been on the staff. It is a problem particularly when national and international affairs are very dramatic and very exciting. It is a problem and one that I think causes a good deal of concern to get students more involved and more interested in the affairs of their local communities. [Host] Let me simply add yes yes. Yeah yeah yeah. And say that the interest in local politics I think is increasing partly because of the kinds of books such as Banfield and Wilson which takes a much more realistic approach, doesn't just talk about the structure of city government at all. And partly because of the willingness of councillors such as Mr. Ionella, if I may say so in your presence, to take on kids in campaigns. [Ionella] May I say Mr. Seeschul

with respect to this book of Banfield and Wilson I think it's a well-written book, treatise type of college text. But on the other hand I was sorry that he didn't go into more specifics in this question. For example, Boston. It's no different than any other major city in America. But some of the problems that we have in Boston is that we don't have sufficient land, good land in the city. And yet sometimes the people who are the best intentioned, or the well-intentioned people are doing more harm to the city of Boston and to many probably other large cities than they realize. To be specific the major problems that we have here in Boston that weren't touched upon in this book is the question of the tax-exempt institutions in the city of Boston. Take for example I've been an advocate of student dormitories being taxed and

they can't possibly compete. There are people in the real estate can't possibly compete with institutions. They gobble up our best lands in the city. We have for example the Back Bay, is the only area of our city which is fruitful for an increase in the tax base and yet it's being turned into a university town. Our hospitals are doing the same thing. Our communities that we talk about, the suburbs so-called. When they want an important operation, and I hope to God that none of them need it, where do they come, they come into Boston and they use up our tax-exempt institutions. [Host] I think what Banfield and Wilson would say in this case is that it's very important for people of good intentions of this sort to understand more thoroughly the problems of the city and I'm sure those authors felt that they were contributing to that understanding by their approach to the problems of the city and the way the political system has responded to those

problems or regrettably in many instances has been unable to respond to them. In summary I guess what we would have to say we've been able to talk about this evening is that since World War Two there has been major changes in the city of a sociological nature, an economic nature which have had impact on the politics of the area. There has been the flight to the suburbs. There has been a flight from the kind of politics that used to be known in the city to what Banfield and Wilson call I think perhaps inappropriately the middle class values of public spiritedness. Whether they're right or wrong in that respect there has been a shift away from the private interest of the earlier times. Now the good and bad effects of this shift to the public-oriented kind of philosophy. One is that there is a rejection of the notion that local issues are in fact political and that there are legitimate pros and cons to be

fought out by interested groups. There is an aseptic quality to the politics of the urban area these days. On the other hand there has been a greater consideration possibly of the broad interests of the metropolitan area expressed perhaps more in the upper classes and the lower classes than in the middle. Well this is a note of some ambiguity to end on, that is what is the ultimate prospect for political control over the way the city develops? But at least we have I think in city politics an attempt to gain a greater understanding. Gentleman thank you.