My target has always been to have a per capita income that’s at the 50 percentile for NJ. Read my article, “Go Trenton, Beat Clifton”. My thinking is that the rest of it flows from there.

I’m not clear why you’re saying I’m not seeing forest for trees.

A big problem is that we are trapped in loops (vicious cycles) System Dynamics attempts to understand the loops and turn vicious cycles into virtuous cycles.

In the 7 years I’ve lived in Trenton I’ve never heard a politician commit or even talk about a goal or target. Those kind of words come back to haunt you especially if you know deep down inside you don’t know what you’re doing.

This is a central problem. My only hope is to find that rare and brave politician (the non-politician) or to create enough external public pressure to assert real influence on policy. This blog is part of my effort to do just that.

I think by taking a snapshot of today’s issues and getting immersed in those issues like you mention above – high crime levels, schools and median income doesn’t allow us to see the forest from the trees. Targets that are core and overarching with multifaceted results is, I believe, a better approach that holds administrations accountable and engages the general population. New administrations understand the community’s targets and would have to agree to further the pursue the stated targets. THEN, possibly use your urban dynamics to measure the cause and effects of desired policy implementations and changes to obtain stated targets. BUT, if you don’t have targets and that future vision then you’re constantly trying to resolve issue after issue like a chicken with its head cut off.

Systems Dynamics use “level” like per capita income to measure “goodness”. A policy represents the intent to use a tactic. A tactic has some effect on various levels in a model. Housing. Employment rate. Taxes collected. Crime level.

Those levels have impacts through measurable effects on each other generally through the concept of “attractivenes”. High crime levels make housing starts less attractive. High employment leads to higher taxes collected.

In general, either directly or indirectly each level therefore impacts other levels including per capita income.

Deciding which level Trenton is solving for is important. If we’re solving for “years in office for a Doug Palmer” then we’re doing great. If we’re trying to be a great place for the poor to live, we’re doing much better than our neighbors.

Depends on what your definition of revitalization is. Mine is to have high enough per capita income for the city to be self-sufficient.

All of the targets you mention can be turned into levels and modeled. They’re all good things to account for. For instance greenhouse gas reduction and high employment are almost certainly negatively related, at least in the short term. But that’s OK, with a model at least we could argue about the linkages rather than the target. The linkage argument is more likely to be fact based than all emotion driven.

Currently Trenton residents pay 12% or our tax bill. The state pays around 80%. Therefore, we’re not able to build a great city as we’re always seeking a handout.

Urban Dynamics is just a modeling tool that forces policy-makers to admit there are causes and effects and to define what they are to the best of their abilities.

It takes thinking and analysis, but like I say in the article. Should we experiment on paper before trying out new policies on live humans?

For example, if you were able to create targets such as % reduction of vehicle miles traveled, % reduction of greenhouse gases, % increase of market rate housing, % reduction of concentrated poverty, % increase of high skilled jobs, % increase of open space and recreation, etc. Then align policies to obtain those targets and address policies that hinder the cities ability to obtain those targets. Also, with this approach you can keep the administration accountable for not obtaining these targets.