In August, 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau ranked Cincinnati the third poorest major city in the U.S., and the poorest in Ohio. At 27.8%, our poverty rate is more than twice the national average. How did we get to this point? I posed this question to Terry Grundy, Adjunct Associate Professor of Community Planning in the School of Planning at U.C. He also serves on the faculty of Northwestern University’s Asset-Based Community Development Institute. Grundy started our conversation with a global perspective and brought the implications right down to the Over-the-Rhine block where partisans of Music Hall and the Drop Inn Center are going head-to-head. The question: do we want to save our historic cities? If so – and Grundy makes a passionate case for this – the solution will require changing course nationally and regionally, not only in City Hall. ------ “Any social problem that persists stubbornly almost always belies a lack of political consensus about the solution – or forces that desire that viable solutions not be implemented,” Grundy began. “The problem of poverty is not unsolvable, but clearly has remained unsolved. There are three possible reasons: inattention to this most morally acute of problems, lack of political will, or certain groups which see it as in their self-interests to block the adoption of viable solutions. There are three cogent theories that have been proposed to explain the persistence of poverty in the United States,” he continued. “Though none of the three can explain the whole phenomenon by itself, each is worth considering.” Model 1: “This view holds that overcoming poverty would require a vast expenditure of public treasure, an expenditure effectively resisted by powerful political forces,” Grundy said. “Partisans of this view point out that our public treasure has been aggregated for international adventures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and that these efforts will cost us upward of a trillion dollars. Holders of this view question whether these wars are making us demonstrably more secure and harbor the suspicion that the main purpose of the wars is to transfer a trillion dollars to military contractors. They see this as a diverting of public resources from things that count to things that are unnecessary and perhaps futile. “We’re a rich nation but don’t have enough money to be the world’s policeman and for investments to develop people, for example, through education and health care – or rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. In contrast, cities like Munich are putting in new high-speed train systems and we can’t fix our bridges. The things that matter and stimulate your economy are ports, highways, good environment: human asset development.” National Public Radio reported in February 2007 that US military spending exceeds that of all other nations of the world combined. Other political entities spending a far lower proportion of their GNP on the military – the European Union, Japan, China, India and Brazil – have shown dramatic economic growth. “Their economic development is a good thing – to our advantage to encourage - but now we are running for our money.” Grundy notes. “These nations are investing in human resources. Japan has a very low military budget partly because we protect them.” This raises the question: Why should the United States continue to bear that expense for an economically robust competitor? Read more...

Choosing to End Poverty: An Interview with Terry Grundy

By Ariel Miller, Executive Director of the Episcopal Community Services Foundation, Cincinnati, Ohio

In August, 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau ranked Cincinnati the third poorest major city in the U.S., and the poorest in Ohio. At 27.8%, our poverty rate is more than twice the national average. How did we get to this point? I posed this question to Terry Grundy, Adjunct Associate Professor of Community Planning in the School of Planning at U.C. He also serves on the faculty of Northwestern University’s Asset-Based Community Development Institute.

Grundy started our conversation with a global perspective and brought the implications right down to the Over-the-Rhine block where partisans of Music Hall and the Drop Inn Center are going head-to-head. The question: do we want to save our historic cities? If so – and Grundy makes a passionate case for this – the solution will require changing course nationally and regionally, not only in City Hall.

------

“Any social problem that persists stubbornly almost always belies a lack of political consensus about the solution – or forces that desire that viable solutions not be implemented,” Grundy began. “The problem of poverty is not unsolvable, but clearly has remained unsolved. There are three possible reasons: inattention to this most morally acute of problems, lack of political will, or certain groups which see it as in their self-interests to block the adoption of viable solutions.

There are three cogent theories that have been proposed to explain the persistence of poverty in the United States,” he continued. “Though none of the three can explain the whole phenomenon by itself, each is worth considering.”

Model 1: “This view holds that overcoming poverty would require a vast expenditure of public treasure, an expenditure effectively resisted by powerful political forces,” Grundy said. “Partisans of this view point out that our public treasure has been aggregated for international adventures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and that these efforts will cost us upward of a trillion dollars. Holders of this view question whether these wars are making us demonstrably more secure and harbor the suspicion that the main purpose of the wars is to transfer a trillion dollars to military contractors. They see this as a diverting of public resources from things that count to things that are unnecessary and perhaps futile.

“We’re a rich country but don’t have enough money

to be the world’s policeman...”

“We’re a rich nation but don’t have enough money to be the world’s policeman and for investments to develop people, for example, through education and health care – or rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. In contrast, cities like Munich are putting in new high-speed train systems and we can’t fix our bridges. The things that matter and stimulate your economy are ports, highways, good environment: human asset development.”

National Public Radio reported in February 2007 that US military spending exceeds that of all other nations of the world combined. Other political entities spending a far lower proportion of their GNP on the military – the European Union, Japan, China, India and Brazil – have shown dramatic economic growth. “Their economic development is a good thing – to our advantage to encourage - but now we are running for our money.” Grundy notes. “These nations are investing in human resources. Japan has a very low military budget partly because we protect them.” This raises the question: Why should the United States continue to bear that expense for an economically robust competitor?