Ed Glaeser is right to say that cities don't need special advantages to compete, they just need to be free from policy that disadvantages them. In particular, he's right to say that the costs of the poor should be a primarily federal, rather than municipal, burden. "Urban poverty does not reflect urban failure," writes Glaeser, "but rather the enduring appeal of cities to the less fortunate. Poor people come to cities because urban areas offer economic opportunity, better social services, and the chance to get by without an automobile." Cities do not cause the poor, the poor simply come to cities, as they can't, in any case, afford suburbs. But there's no obvious reason that cities should disproportionately pay for the poor. As a matter of justice, it's strange to let folks opt-out of caring for the least among us by geographically separating themselves. And as a matter of policy, the economic and environmental incentives are very clear: You want growing, dynamic cities, and that means you don't want them at a stark fiscal disadvantage as compared to the suburbs.
