Counterpoint
A recent column by Katherine Kersten ("Sticking it to the suburbs," Aug. 4) raised the specter of a Metropolitan Council on steroids, forcing outer-ring communities to live by "rules" of the urban core cities and inner-ring suburbs that focus on equity and sustainability. Kersten called this "regionalism" — and she didn't mean it in a good way.
We see regionalism differently. Among the three of us, we've served 44 years as mayors of very different Twin Cities-area suburbs. We are proud of our cities and are laser-focused on helping them to be successful communities in which to raise families, work, do business and enjoy life.
We know that in order to do that we need to be part of a successful metropolitan area.
The dynamic engines of economic growth in the 21st century are metropolitan regions. Bruce Katz, vice president at the Brookings Institution and coauthor of "The Metropolitan Revolution," says that metro areas — not the federal or state governments — will build the foundation of the new economy. "Cities are starting to take control of their economic future," he said. "They aren't waiting for Washington."
Since 2004, we have been part of the Regional Council of Mayors, a unique organization in that it is nongovernmental and without any kind of rigid structure. Basically, we are a group of metro-area mayors who get together once a month to work on regional issues. We are committed to candid dialogue in a nonpartisan setting, and we find agreement on more than we ever would have expected.
Just a few years ago, the Metropolitan Council was looking at how to help manage expected burgeoning growth in the suburbs. That was where everyone thought growth would happen. Changing demographics, changing lifestyles and changing economics have made the future look different.
Important observations include: