"The perception of Mayors and cities is far more positive than it was a decade ago. Back then urban areas were perceived as dysfunctional communities–high crime rates, high taxes, bloated bureaucracies," Mayor Webb told the audience of nearly three hundred gathered at the luncheon. "And now things are quite different. Mayors are being praised as new reformers. Our focus on sound governance and quality of the issues has generated national and international attention.

"The new conventional wisdom is that we are efficient, we are close to the people, we are results-oriented, pragmatic problem-solvers. . .cities are once again being seen as the places to live, the places to work, the places to shop, the centers of commerce and industry and sports and entertainment."

Mayor Webb also reminded the presidential candidates that the American economy is not being driven by the federal government or the 50 states for that matter – but by local economies. He pointed to a recent study completed by Standard and Poor’s DRI for the Conference and the National Association of Counties.

The report, entitled "U.S. Metro Areas: The Engines of America’s Growth," documents the Gross Metropolitan Product (GMP) of the nation’s 317 largest metro areas, and shows across-the-board improved economic vitality for the nation’s metro regions. (Gross Metropolitan Product is a concept analogous to Gross Domestic Product, the commonly accepted measure nations use to calculate the total annual value of goods and services they have produced.)

"The successes of America’s cities have been unmistakable – it is no coincidence that the changes have driven our strong vibrant local economy–that are talked about on a national basis–are central city and metropolitan driven," Mayor Webb commented. "It is the Mayors–the CEOs of these cities–they are the ones promoting economic development, building arenas, enticing businesses, creating jobs throughout this nation. We must begin to look at where the real work is being done."

However, Mayor Webb reminded the candidates and those present that America’s success story had not yet benefited all of its citizens. "The rising tide of a strong economy has not raised all ships and it has not benefited all Americans. We must look at how we can as Americans prepare an agenda, a new agenda for America that will serve all of our communities and all of our cities and all of our metropolitan areas."

At the close of his address Mayor Webb took questions from the audience. Excerpts follow.

A: Let me give you some examples . . .Denver’s unemployment’s 3.1 percent. If we apply for a federal grant and we have gained 50,000 people and 50,000 jobs and we compete against a city that lost 100,000 people and 50,000 jobs, normally the grants go into the other city.

But what we’re saying is that federal assistance has to come to distressed neighborhoods as much as it comes to distressed cities. . . we have neighborhoods in Denver with an unemployment rate of 15, 16 percent.

I’d be willing to bet – since I couldn’t find a taxi to take me there – I’d be willing to bet the lack of investment in Anacostia is less than it is in other parts of D.C. And if you’re able to put government investment in neighborhoods that are not being served, private investment will follow. Private investment is not going to lead the way...

... In Harlem, someone found out that in some neighborhoods, there’s much more of a cash economy. And I think the Social Compact’s talked about that. . .there’s a cash economy, and that sometimes, you can’t get it off government Census data.

But everybody in the neighborhood knows people are spending cash for things. So what they found out is that a lot of black people can’t go to the show ‘cause it’s too far, maybe we ought to put – a lot of black people rent videos, maybe we ought to put a Blockbuster in Harlem. Lo and behold – that’s the biggest-selling Blockbuster video in the state of New York. Now they’re going to do a retail center.

Because what they found is when you go outside the box – and we have to think outside the box – is that many things can be accomplished if, one, we think outside the box and say that we can do it, and two, we say that not only do we want to have policies that affect distressed cities, but we also have to affect distressed neighborhoods. Because no mayor in America is going to want federal assistance if they have to become distressed to get it. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

A: Well, I can’t explain brownfields, minimum wage, gun safety, CARE, African Trade bill – I can’t explain why none of that passed. But again, the issue is – the issue is your view of the world.

My view of the world is that. . .you tend to tilt towards places that have never been built? We tend to fund new areas without ever taking care of the old.

I mean, have you ever thought about if we started taking our resources, and take those resources and fill in the city and the older suburbs attached to the cities, and then go out, you’d address three issues. And this is – this is going to be a long answer to the question.

This is why I think there’s also an opportunity for a new coalition. In the Congress, there are 57 Congress members that have come from urban districts. So politically, most people don’t listen to people if you say "urban agenda" and you say "cities."

But if you look at a policy that says "These Mayors of cities are concerned about the loss of farmland and green space, and those 67 rural Congresspeople are concerned about the loss of farmland, and those rural legislators think that part of that farmland can be saved if the government begins to fund and take care of existing infrastructure," now you have 110 Congresspeople.

And if you look at the suburban areas around central cities that are driving the economy, I’d be willing to bet – and again, I don’t know this area as well – I’d be willing to bet that there was probably a suburban area around D.C. that had large shopping areas. And it began to deteriorate, because someone decided to run highways out further, and then they probably even built a new shopping center out in someplace that no one ever heard of, like Tyson’s Corner. (Laughter.)

And then they went – and then people began to move and drive further out, and so then the highway spending went further out, and the money for infrastructure for inside the city and the older suburbs tends to get less and less. And then Tyson’s Corner begins to get too far, and then the development tends to go further and further out.

The question is: when are we going to fix what we have before we spend money on what’s new? (Applause.)

A: Well, we build them both. I think – Denver’s a city. Washington’s a city. Cleveland, Detroit. You expect certain things in a city. You expect to be able to go to a football game and a basketball game, a baseball or a hockey. You expect to be able to go to the symphony or the ballet. You expect to be able to have a downtown that’s thriving where there’s an energy and a synergy and people feel good about being in a downtown.

You expect to have choices. You expect to have suburban living or rowhouse living or lofts or condos – that’s what city life’s about. . . Now, if you don’t want that, you move further out.

I don’t think there’s a correlation between building one versus the other. You have to build the schools to provide an integrated workforce to provide for the jobs in the city. But at the same time, you also have to build stadiums to enhance sports teams to be there with bills that work for the people in the city.

The question Jesse should have asked: Are the people building the stadiums have investments in the city, and are they getting part of the action to help build up the local economy, or are they people that have no investment in the city that are building the stadiums? That’s the question that should have been asked. (Applause.)

A: Well, I think Mayors are doing that. I think Mayors are doing that all across the nation. Let me tell you one of the things that the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News are doing in Denver. Let me tell what they used to do and they stopped doing.

It used to be that if there was a drive-by shooting, the kid’s pictures would be all in the paper and they’d even have the gang affiliation. And the newspapers stopped putting the gang affiliation in the paper. They also stopped putting in the paper what sometimes was thought to be a gangland slaying and wasn’t.

The question I think is: What can we do to enhance the image of kids that are doing well in school? What we’ve done in Denver is say let’s highlight these kids. Let’s make ‘em "Mile High Scholars" with a certificate signed by the mayor and tickets to whatever sports team at the time is winning –(laughter) and give them tickets to whatever kind of –where they want to go – to the zoo, the aquarium.

And then print their names in the newspaper, and give then a reinforcement to those parents that these kids are doing well in school. And then put the parents’ name in there, because sometimes it’s hard – parents also have to be part of that equation. And I think we do that.

And I think when we do that, and Mayors across this country – some are taking on the school district overall to run it. But I think we have to continue to reinforce that it’s okay to be smart, it’s okay to be good, it’s okay to be a leader. And that you can have your picture in the paper not because you robbed somebody or shot somebody. You can have your picture in the paper – maybe just because you had to get up and live in a dysfunctional family, and you went to school every day, you kept your grades up, you worked part-time, and you are probably more successful than people that have had a lot provided for ‘em.(Applause.)

A: Well, I think Mayor Daley’s done a great job on that. And I think you need to remember one size doesn’t fit all. That what works in Chicago may not work in Denver, what works in Denver may not work in Dallas, what works in Dallas may not work in Bridgeport. And what works in Bridgeport –

There needs to be the flexibility so that if it’s required and you need to take it over, as what’s been the case in Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland. In Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke – from the beginning, Baltimore’s had in their charter that you can appoint people to the board. The same way in Boston.

In some other cities that are western, like in Austin, they need support, but they don’t need someone to run the district, because it’s a different set-up. The issue is whether the Mayors are going to be involved in providing support directly or indirectly for the education of the kids in that city, because they’re going to get the blame for it, whether they do or not.

If a kid gets shot – and the mayor would know when he was mayor – they’re going to send police cars and police work for the city. If the kids aren’t producing, then they’re going to raise that issue with the mayor as well.

But if we believe that we have to have an integrated workforce and kids coming out of that system for the workforce, the people that ought to be the most concerned are the business community that wants to have an integrated workforce to take those jobs within that city. And they need to do that hand in hand, public and private sector together.

A: Well, I like to share with the private sector: "Care about me as much as you do when the economy is poor as you do when the economy is good."

I think our obligation is to provide incentives for private investment by helping to anchor through public support for distressed neighborhoods in order to get private investment in those particular neighborhoods, where the neighborhoods would be safe, those neighborhoods will have trash collection, and those neighborhoods will have city services.

And that we will work with those investors who put in whatever they want to do – in terms of whether it’s a job-training program, or whether it’s what. I think the question is whether there’s skilled labor to provide for those employers that want to work in those – have businesses in those particular neighborhoods.

And I think most Mayors are going to work with whatever private sector groups they are to work with particular neighborhoods in part of their cities.

A: Well, you guys are like everybody else. Some do, some don’t. It depends on who it is. I think if you report every day that a city’s unsafe and people leave, and then you start promoting that the city’s safe again, I think it’s hard to get people to move back into that city.

I think you have to show stories on both sides, both good and bad and be objective in the reporting, because newspapers are a business. And I’ve always looked at that it wants to sell newspapers as a commercial enterprise. And that as that commercial enterprise that hopefully your obligation is to demonstrate that there is a lot of good news that goes on as well.

And I think the general public is also interested in good news as much as they are in finding the "I gotcha" stories. The "I gotcha" story is good for a day. But in reality, most people want the same thing. They want to know if they can move in a city that’s safe. They want to know if they can move into a city where their kids are going to receive a quality education. They want

to know if they can live in a city that is going to provide them the choices of being able to go into a park and for recreation and have green space and a place where they will have people, as well as a place of solitude.

They want to move into a place that gives them options in terms of their social life – in terms of whether they support arts or support sports. They want choices of what city life is about. And if we provide those things, if we provide those things, then those things should be reported.