agencies and non-profit organizations seek innovative ways to develop

 “civic spaces” where
deliberation can occur. This might mean opening school cafeterias after hours to accommodate
community meetings or building parks where dog walkers can congregate while their pets
exercise. Although some liberals have criticized such inexpensive government programs as mere
window dressing, we believe that  “little things” can reap large returns. We believe that
government can play a key role, at little cost, both in facilitating local engagement and in
enlarging its scope and psychic rewards.
Recommendation 4: Broaden the Role of Citizens in Restructuring Government. Most political
debate revolves around questions of government spending and regulation. Should the government
provide more money for K-12 education? Subsidize prescription drugs for senior citizens?
Require that all gun owners be licensed? We spend far less time mulling an equally important set
of questions: How government should be constituted (i.e., highly centralized, or highly
decentralized), what the responsibilities of different levels of government should be, and what
processes should govern political decision-making. Because these questions receive inadequate
attention, we endorse formal and regular re-evaluations of local, state, and national government
structures along the lines of the charter-review commissions recently empowered to rethink the
governing structures of the City and County of Los Angeles.
As happened in Los Angeles, such reviews should tackle a fundamental question: Which level of
government should fulfill which functions? While some programs can be effectively provided
only by the national government, as proponents of community involvement, we are concerned
about the concentration of power in larger and larger entities. When policy decisions and delivery
take place on a plane far above local capacities, then ordinary people tune out, figuring they can’t
make a difference. From the vantage point of increasing social capital, smaller is better than
larger, and local is better than national. To the extent possible given the imperatives of equal
treatment and program effectiveness, governmental decision-making authority should be pushed
downward so that citizens believe they can have an influence over the policies that affect their
lives.
Recommendation 5: Rein in Suburban Sprawl.  Increasingly, government and civic leaders are
recognizing that the pace and design of new construction pose a threat to the quality of
community life. Therefore, more state governments should follow the lead of Maryland and
Georgia by devising comprehensive  “smart growth” strategies. And more local governments
should follow the lead of Memphis and surrounding Shelby County, Tenn., to enact regional
planning principles and procedures. These and other pioneering development strategies are wide
ranging, but most have several features in common: restoring existing buildings rather than
constructing new ones ever farther away; coordinating zoning and development decisions across
city and county boundaries; and reducing traffic flows and commuting times. As the Partnership
for Livable Communities has observed,  “achieving a regional identity depends upon the
combined efforts of three once-disparate sectors of society: business, the government, and
nonprofits.” Although the  “new regionalism” requires collaboration, only government has the
authority to steer development in such a way that encourages casual interactions among
pedestrians and stronger neighborhood cohesion.