1In then 1960s, U.S. social scientists began a protracted debate about the causes of and remedies for urban poverty, a discussion that accelerated in the 1980s with the realization that new concentrations of poverty were developing. As the poverty research industry matured, it emphasized the role of contagion effects of place and the behavior of the poor in causing poverty, to the exclusion of macro-economic, structural factors3. Moreover, researchers and policymakers increasingly saw federal solutions to urban poverty as politically nonviable, due not only to a growing climate of devolution and neoliberalism, but also because of high-profile public policy disasters such as public housing. In this context, a new set of regional strategies to address inequity emerged by the 1990s, a movement alternatively called “new regionalism”, or, more narrowly, “equity regionalism”, “regional equity”, or “progressive regionalism4”. Although varying in form, each strategy essentially proposes a spatial fix by engaging the suburbs in solving the problem of urban poverty.

2The equity regionalist program grows out of the initial awareness of urban-suburban disparity powerfully articulated by the Kerner Commission in 1968, with its warning that “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white-separate and unequal.” The primary cause, as supported by research by John Kain5, was the shift of new employment opportunities to the suburbs and the lack of federal policies to connect urban residents, particularly African Americans, to jobs; the major remedy was to be opening up the suburbs to the disadvantaged. This early framing of the urban poverty problem as connected to urban-suburban disparities quickly became the prevailing wisdom. By the mid-90s, researchers were framing the problem in terms of the “geography of metropolitan opportunity”, referring to the actual prospects that the opportunity structure (as governed by markets, institutions, and social systems) offers based on geography6. In another memorable construction, Rusk analogized the landscape of metropolitan opportunity to the game of basketball, prescribing a focus on the outside game as the way to solve the problems of the inside game7.

3Members of the equity regionalist camp self-identify as advocates of social justice. The idea behind regional strategies for poverty is that they will allow for equality of opportunity and thus improve the life chances of the impoverished. Equity regionalists seek to maximize individual utility, seeing mobility as the means-in what Imbroscio calls the mode of “liberal expansionism8”. The need to level the playing field creates an imperative for action; as a National Academy of Sciences committee on metropolitan governance framed it, “A lack of equal opportunity is thus in the most profound sense a’moral’problem for Americans9”.

4Regional strategies to remedy unequal opportunity include changing the spatial distribution of population (for instance through creating new housing choices in the suburbs, moving inner-city residents to the suburbs, or transporting city residents to suburban jobs) or reducing tax or service disparities (typically either via tax base sharing or new regional governing strategies). The focus of these strategies is on sharing the resources or opportunities of the region’s outer rings with its core, to create a more just spatial distribution.

5Yet, a growing body of work on the “just city10” implies that equity regionalist strategies to address poverty may not address systemic injustices. Though remedying unequal opportunity is obviously important to regional equity, it may not be possible to satisfy common aspirations and respect human dignity through policy that attempts to construct an even landscape of metropolitan opportunity. Planners adopting liberal conceptions of justice embrace an abstract principle of equality at the expense of situated ethical judgment that appreciates individual circumstance11.

6This paper examines the idea and practice of regional anti-poverty strategies in the light of different conceptions of social justice. We begin by describing four types of equity regionalist strategies: regional governing structures, fair share housing, tax base sharing, and dispersal and mobility policies. We then show how new regionalism finds its moral underpinnings in the work of Rawls12. We next examine alternative notions of social justice, in particular the ideas of capabilities, the need for affiliation, and the “right to the city” and urban life13. We conclude by discussing whether and how the state and planners can intervene to produce a more just metro for those living in concentrated poverty neighborhoods.

Overview of regional strategies and their outcomes

7Throughout the twentieth century, regionalists advanced spatial strategies to improve regional efficiency and competitiveness, with notable examples from the 1929 Regional Plan of New York to the advent of regional councils of government (COGs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the 1960s and 1970s, to plans such as Envision Utah! in the 1990s. The push for equity regionalism emerged relatively late in the game, as awareness of urban-suburban disparities increased. Of the four strategies discussed in this article, most appeared by the mid-1970s. Regional government-an equity strategy to the extent to which it evens out service and fiscal disparities-was the first to appear, in the form of the COGs and MPOs, as well as ongoing government consolidations among cities and counties. Tax base sharing, which redistributes tax revenues among local governments in a metropolitan area, originated in the Twin Cities’1971 Fiscal Disparities Act. Fair share housing programs (including inclusionary zoning), which require developers to provide low-or moderate-income housing units in exchange for development permission, were implemented by multiple states in the 1970s. Finally, though the 1970s saw some trials of dispersal and mobility programs, the federal government implemented larger-scale experiments in the 1990s.

Regional government

8Regional governing strategies provide a variety of ways to equalize opportunity across a region, either by changing the spatial distribution of the population through land use planning and growth control or by reducing service disparities through governmental consolidation, special purpose districts, or state equalization aid. Although the latter two strategies are quite common, the others are much rarer14.

9State or metropolitan land use planning can help create a more even landscape of opportunity in particular by requiring local governments to zone for more of the region’s high-density housing (by ending exclusionary practices or assuming its fair share of regional housing need, as discussed further below). Though debate is ongoing on the effectiveness of land use planning or growth control as a regional equity strategy, it seems to be associated with increases in housing prices15. Perhaps the outcome would be different if regions incentivized affordability at the same time as encouraging density. Such was the format of the acclaimed Montgomery County inclusionary zoning program, which requires the provision of moderateincome dwelling units but has its county public housing agency purchase one-third of these units16.

10Government consolidations typically unify the city and county governments (e. g., Miami-Dade County). There have been just 22 approved since 1921, perhaps in part because of the difficulty of gaining both city and suburban voter approval17. In theory, a single general-purpose regional government would eliminate both tax and service disparities by centralizing government taxing powers and service delivery. However, in practice, it may not actually succeed in remedying tax and service disparities. Individual cities often retain their taxing authority, undermining the idea of revenue sharing, and studies have shown that cities as well as consolidated metros consistently underserve their minority and low-income neighborhoods and/or dilute minority voices18. Special districts (e. g., for water or sewer services) function in much the same way, with their own taxing and service functions, but have rarely been evaluated in terms of their ability to remedy inequities19.

11State and federal equalization aid, which take the form of either general revenue sharing grants or special grants (e. g., for education) from higher levels of government, helps to remedy fiscal disparities among cities. These generally reduce differences in per capita spending, but rarely actually equalize it, due to both the inequality in other sources of funding and the variation in need20.

Fair share housing

12Regional fair share housing strategies attempt to address inequities in the regional distribution of affordable housing, in order to shift more affordable housing provision to the outside game21. Typically, the approach is based on a formula for assigning affordable housing obligations to regional sub-areas, most frequently individual municipalities within a single metropolitan area. The formulae can take different forms, emphasizing a range of parameters that can be used to establish what a “fair” distribution of housing opportunities within a metro area should look like. Typical elements of fair share formulae are existing population in sub-areas, estimated population growth, and the (inverse of) relative availability of low-cost or subsidized housing.

13The fair share approach was popular in the United States for a short period of time more than 30 years ago. In the early 1970s, shortly after passage of the Fair Housing Act, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development supported the creation of fair share strategies in metro areas around the country. Regional authorities in a number of areas created programs aimed at producing a more equitable distribution of subsidized housing between cities and their suburban satellites. These efforts, and HUD’s interest in supporting them, were short-lived. Probably the best of these programs, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process in California, has survived largely due to the threat of litigation, but has compromised in its commitment to affordability22. In other places, the rapid decline in federal subsidies for low-cost housing has rendered fair share allocation systems irrelevant by making the development of affordable housing difficult in all communities. Further, the lack of political appetite for subsidized housing in the suburbs has been an insurmountable obstacle to implementation of fair share schemes23. In Minnesota’s fair share housing program, a lack of funding, political will, and planner savvy meant that just five acres of every 100 acres set aside for affordable housing in the program actually had new low-or moderate-income housing twenty years later24.

14One of the few programs to endure was the court-ordered effort in New Jersey. A product of the Mt. Laurel I and Mt. Laurel II rulings, the state of New Jersey produced a system of regional fair share housing administered by the statewide Council on Affordable Housing. In place for more than 20 years, this program imposes an affirmative obligation on communities within urban regions to create affordable housing. Over 22,000 units of housing were subsidized in the first 10 years of the program25. The potential for the program to significantly alter the spatial distribution of low-cost housing is seriously limited by the program provision that allows municipalities to purchase compliance credits from each other. Under these so-called Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs), a community that does not wish to actually build affordable housing can transfer up to 50% of its affordable housing obligation to another community by paying the second community. The receiving community, typically larger, lower-income, and more racially diverse communities, take, in the aggregate, millions of dollars from higher-income, whiter communities, to finance affordable housing efforts.

15The scale of the New Jersey approach is sufficient to produce a sizable number of affordable housing units in communities that likely would not have built them otherwise. In this respect, the program is producing a more equitable distribution of housing opportunities within the state’s urban regions (notwithstanding the limiting effects of RCAs). In terms of facilitating a movement of families out of concentrated poverty, or out of racially segregated areas, the program has had a negligible effect. Most units built in the suburban areas of metro regions are occupied by families who already lived in the suburbs. Only 6.8% of units are occupied by African- American families who moved out of a central city and into a suburb. When movement in the other direction is accounted for (i. e., the movement of African-American families out of the suburbs and into a Mt. Laurel unit built within a central city) the net movement of such families into desegregated suburban areas accounts for less than two percent of all Mt. Laurel units26.

Tax base sharing

16As with fair share housing, tax base sharing is a program that receives a great deal of attention from equity regionalists, but exists in only a few places. Summer identified nine urban areas with a general tax base sharing effort27. The most well-known example is in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. Since 1971, local governments in that region have been sharing a portion of the commercial/industrial (CI) tax base and reallocating those resources within the region. The program applies to a portion of the increment in CI tax base generated in all municipalities within the region. Specifically, 40% of the increment in CI property tax revenues for each municipality is put into a regional pool. The allocation of revenues from that pool is made according to a formula. If a jurisdiction’s allocation from the pool is greater than its contribution, it is a net recipient under the law. In many cases, recipients are on the inside while donors come from the periphery of the region.

17By 2003, the program’s pool of tax resources accounted for 10 percent of the entire metro-wide tax base from all sources, and totaled 345.8 million dollars28. The Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities estimates that the program reduces disparities in CI tax base from what would be a 12 to 1 per capita ratio to a 4 to 1 ratio29. However, since the formula requires cities that have a rich commercial property base to pay into the pool even if they also have a high poverty population, tax base sharing can be inequitable;e. g., Minneapolis has occasionally been a donor city, as has Dayton30.

Dispersal and mobility

18Dispersal policy is reflected in three major policy initiatives, the Gautreaux program, Moving To Opportunity, and the HOPE VI program. The Gautreaux consent decree-which was followed by at least eleven others-forced the Chicago Housing Authority develop a metropolitan-wide “mobility program” to partially compensate for its discriminatory practice of placing public housing in predominantly African-American or racially changing areas31. Over a twenty-year period, over 7,100 families were relocated from virtually all-black urban areas to middle-income, overwhelmingly white areas in Chicago and its suburbs32.

19Inspired by the success of Gautreaux and its tenant-based mobility structure, Congress authorized the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration program in 1992 in the cities of Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. Participants in an experimental group (which was paired with two control groups) moved from very high poverty to lowpoverty neighborhoods. MTO, then, was an early attempt to assess whether low-poverty areas translated into improved life chances for low-income households.

20As with other deconcentration programs, HOPE VI, authorized in 1992, involved the relocation of residents of distressed public housing to different neighborhoods. HOPE VI provides funds to local housing authorities for the redevelopment of severely distressed public housing projects. HOPE VI projects typically involve displacement and relocation of public housing residents, and demolition to make way for newly constructed, mixed-income developments. It differs from Gautreaux and MTO in its much larger scale, since hundreds of public housing authorities nationwide have implemented it, and larger scope, involving both demolition and construction.

21Program outcomes have generally been mixed, with voluntary programs like MTO faring slightly better than involuntary like HOPE VI. Most prominently, no dispersal policy has had a demonstrable positive effect on economic opportunity, as measured by employment, earnings, or income of individuals. In the Gautreaux program in Chicago, the outcome for families who moved to the suburbs was no change in employment or wages. This failure is repeated for individuals in the MTO program, every HOPE VI study thus far completed, and even HUD’s Welfare to Work Voucher Program33. Dispersal may actually increase economic insecurity: relocatees lack money for food and rent and lack residential stability34.

22Although initial findings from the Gautreaux experiment suggested that relocating to the suburbs would have a positive outcome on schooling, subsequent studies have tempered those results, and effects on achievement overall seem to be small35. The majority of studies also show little in the way of a health benefit for low-income individuals36. The move itself seems to have negative impacts on those forced to relocate (e. g., in HOPE VI), because of their attachment to place37.

23Perhaps most important, relocation does not seem to stimulate social interaction between higher-and lower-income residents38. Recent work on diversity39 supports this finding: communities may be coping with their diversity by avoiding high levels of interaction.

24On the plus side, studies consistently show that families that move out of neighborhoods of concentrated poverty report benefits of increased sense of safety40. Moreover, improvements in housing and neighborhood characteristics consistently occur41.

25Another major approach to make jobs more accessible is to connect jobseekers to opportunities throughout the metropolitan region through transportation. Most funding to link low-income urban residents to suburban jobs (for instance, the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program) has supported reverse commuting via transit or vanpooling. Yet, historically, such initiatives have had little success, particularly in terms of reducing inner city unemployment, though they may help those who are already employed42.

26Likewise, the recent Bridges to Work experiment, which provided job placement and transportation services to help urban low-skilled workers access suburban jobs in five regions, concluded that it was not an effective solution, since the program did not increase employment or earnings (compared to a control group)43. Perhaps because the labor market was relatively tight when the program was implemented, turnover at the suburban jobs was high; given the choice between the low-wage, low-skill jobs in the suburbs or close to home in the city, jobseekers chose the latter. The findings indicated that workforce development, particularly recruitment and job-readiness, is the major policy challenge in improving the employment chances of the disadvantaged, and in any case workers will not take on long reverse commutes if they cannot realize substantially higher wages in return44.

Key concepts of justice underlying the new regionalism

27The argument that we should create an even landscape of opportunity through strategies that change the spatial distribution of the population or remedy fiscal disparities finds much of its moral underpinnings in the work of John Rawls45. There are three components of Rawls’theory of justice that are relevant to the equity regionalist argument: the “difference principle”, the idea of “primary goods”, and the “original position.”

The Difference Principle

28In his second principle of justice (the difference principle), Rawls46 argues that:

Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

29The idea of equality of opportunity is not just that “offices and positions” are open to all, but that all have the opportunity to acquire the skills necessary in order to achieve in a meritocracy. Rawls acknowledges that social and economic inequality is pervasive and does not suggest that the distribution of wealth and income should be equal, but that it should be to everyone’s advantage. In remedying inequalities, maintaining some unequal distribution is justifiable as long as it is to the benefit of all. In order to be just, the more fortunate can benefit disproportionately so long as the condition of the least well-off improves relative to their previous state.

30Like Rawls, the equity regionalist argument starts from the position that the distribution of opportunities and resources across metropolitan areas is unjust. As has been well documented elsewhere47, economic restructuring reinforced by public policy exacerbated existing inequalities within metropolitan areas by the end of the 20th century, with increasing concentrations of poverty in the inner city and affluence in the suburbs. Equity regionalists seek to establish a more just distribution by breaking up pockets of poverty, creating more housing choice in the suburbs, revitalizing the old inner city neighborhoods with an influx of upper-income residents, and equalizing fiscal resources and thus service expenditures. Equity regionalists are not so naïve as to think this will fully remedy inequality, but they do expect the change to improve the condition of the least well-off by putting them in an environment rich with resources and opportunities; at a minimum, fair governance coupled with less isolation from the mainstream should level the playing field. If opportunity depends on the ability of individuals to acquire skills to succeed in the meritocracy, then living in the suburbs is key.

31Has equity regionalism succeeded in providing more equality of opportunity, with the least advantaged all experiencing some improvement? The overview of equity regionalist strategies, above, suggests a mixed, but mostly failed record. Of regional governing strategies, the most promising is probably state equalization aid, which at least improves the resources available to the least advantaged. However, government consolidations do not have a strong record in addressing equity issues, land use planning that incorporates measures for housing affordability (including fair share housing) has been sparingly implemented, and there are also just a few instances of tax-base sharing.

32The impact of the new wave of dispersal and mobility policies on equality of opportunity is even more questionable. In the best case (the MTO program, rather than HOPE VI), dispersal policies have helped families to move to residential neighborhoods with lower levels of poverty. But even so, direct benefits to the families are limited. Families feel safer and they report some inconsistent improvements in mental health. But there are conspicuously no benefits in employment, income, welfare dependency, or physical health. Further, many of the families suffer significant interruptions in their social networking. Likewise, mobility programs, particularly reverse commuting programs, have failed to improve access to jobs and thus do not have an impact on equality of opportunity. In other words, dispersal and mobility policies are failing even to meet the Rawlsian condition of benefit to all, since life chances are not improving in the new neighborhoods relative to the former neighborhoods.

33Justifiable from the Rawlsian perspective is the fact that the well-off may benefit even more than the disadvantaged. Though almost all equity regionalist strategies involve redistribution from the wealthy to the poor, dispersal policy offers significant, even disproportionate, benefits to the affluent. In particular, HOPE VI, which has replaced low-income housing with moderate-income and market-rate housing in the urban core, has helped more affluent residents not only move near downtown, but recapture land value in choice neighborhoods nearby.

Primary Goods

34In order to realize opportunity, individuals need equality in “primary goods.” These are defined as the prerequisites, both social and natural, for rational individuals to achieve their life plans. Social goods include rights, liberties, and opportunities, which confer the capacity to realize goals, but also income and wealth. Natural goods include health, intelligence, and imagination. According to Rawls, these add up to self-respect: a sense of one’s own value and confidence in one’s ability to carry out one’s life plan.

35From the equity regionalist perspective, the suburbs offer more equality in primary goods than cities do. The suburbs not only improve access to opportunity but also offer a higher quality of life48. In the city, the persistent and unsafe ghetto culture, a. k. a. the culture of poverty, reflects the lack of self-respect and devaluing of human life, particularly among low-income minorities49. But in the suburbs, the quality of public services and schools is better, neighborhoods are safer and friendlier, and the sense of community is greater. By implication, ghetto culture will not take hold in the suburbs and thus will not hinder the acquisition of primary goods there.

36This assumes, of course, that the suburbs do offer enhanced opportunities to acquire skills: that suburban schools are of high quality, jobs are plentiful and accessible, and social systems and networks are inclusive. In practice, however, the failure in particular of dispersal and mobility programs challenges this assumption. Though the new neighborhoods may offer relatively more primary goods, this masks the fact that the families are by and large relocating to other high-poverty, racially segregated neighborhoods. And often, the suburbs do not improve primary goods. For instance, relocatees typically experience difficulty rebuilding social networks, and perhaps because of this, are unable to improve in terms of economic opportunity. Likewise, they do not experience improved health outcomes, perhaps because of losing access to health services and institutions once located outside the urban core.

37In the case of mobility programs, such as the Bridges to Work program, reverse commuters may actually end up in weaker labor markets than in the central city. In the case of tax base sharing, equality in primary goods may not result because some cities are more expensive to service than others. Given cities’different service environments, equal inputs (tax revenues) do not necessarily lead to equal outcomes.

The Original Position

38Another component of Rawls’argument that is relevant to the new regionalist standpoint is the “original position”, the idea that everyone should decide principles of justice from behind a “veil of ignorance”, a lack of knowledge about their own position in society. In order to further justice, individuals should devise strategies without knowing how s/he will benefit. If we start from this original position, we will maximize the benefit to the least well-off. In other words, the pursuit of justice should be ahistorical.

39The equity regionalist argument blames the failed policies of the past, in particular the construction of public housing through the 1950s, the community economic development policies of the 1960s and 1970s, and government-led suburbanization for regional inequity. Instead, it proposes a set of new policies to even out resources and opportunities across the region. Interestingly, these policies do not grow out of an understanding of why past policies have failed (e. g., the lack of funding to cover public housing maintenance, the lack of funding for the War on Poverty, and the inability of municipalities to zone for and fund affordable housing). Rather, they in essence start from behind the “veil of ignorance”: they propose as a solution altogether different governance structures (from the market provision of affordable housing for voucher holders, to government mandates to meet affordable housing need, to new ways of distributing services and revenues across the metro). In other words, the veil of ignorance extends to the problem definition: the underlying assumption is that the problem is not the failure of the market and suburban municipalities to provide affordable housing opportunities, but the inability of individuals to exit public housing stock.

40Further, it is hard to argue that these policies, particularly dispersal, are constructed without stakeholders knowing how they will benefit. There is clear benefit to the inner city growth machine in removing low-income residents-yet there is no critical examination of such benefit.

Equity regionalism and alternative conceptions of justice

41Although the idea of equality of opportunity underlies much of equity regionalist policy, there are other ways to examine the issues of justice and opportunity in the inner city. The capabilities approach50 shifts our focus to what inner-city residents are able to do or be, instead of how much they can achieve in purely economic terms. Related to this is the idea that needs differ among groups, so the Rawlsian set of primary goods may not apply uniformly to all and equal starting points may not mean equal outcomes51. Another line of argument lies in the concept of a “right to the city52”, which includes the right to urban life and its centrality, vitality, and visibility53.

Capabilities

42The capabilities approach54 suggests that instead of thinking about distribution in terms of the resources people are able to access, we should examine what their environmental context allows them to do or be. Capabilities encompass many of Rawls’social and natural goods, but also include the pursuit of “affiliation”: “being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another and to have compassion for that situation; to have the capability for both justice and friendship55”.

43The idea of affiliation acknowledges the use value of urban space, which Lefèbvre incorporates into his idea of city as “oeuvre”, or a collective project in which all of its citizens participate. The tension between use value and exchange value fosters battles for urban land: “This city is itself’oeuvre’, a feature which contrasts with the irreversible tendency towards money and commerce, towards exchange and products. Indeed the oeuvre is use value and the product is exchange value56”. Residents have a right to the oeuvre, since it allows them to meet their social needs, which “include the need for security and opening, the need for certainty and adventure, that of organization of work and of play, the needs or the predictable and the unpredictable, of similarity and difference, of isolation and encounter, exchange and investments, of independence (even solitude) and communication, of immediate and long-term prospects57”.

44As Fainstein58 and other critics point out, the Rawlsian focus on equality among individuals sidesteps these issues of social affiliation and needs. Omitting the collectivity from the discussion means that certain types of goods-particularly those associated with social affiliation-are not considered important: “The starting point of individual liberty also avoids questions that bear on the character of collective goods -e. g. a high-quality built environment-if they are not necessary for the development of capabilities or remedying inequality59”.

45Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that some equity regionalist strategies-in particular, dispersal and mobility strategies-have met with mixed success. If dispersal has not improved access to natural goods, such as health, and social goods, such as economic opportunity, then the move to the suburbs may actually hinder the development of capabilities. If the development of capabilities rests in part on meeting the need for social affiliation, then the disruption of social networks that occurs when the spatial distribution of the population changes may likewise affect capabilities negatively.

46The concept of the “oeuvre” sheds light on why mobility strategies have not succeeded in helping city residents access suburban jobs. Strategies that purely promote physical access to jobs ignore the intricate social system through which people find jobs-let alone the workforce development system which, at its best, provides a valuable channel for information about the labor market60.

Differing needs

47We turn next to the issue of whether and how needs for primary goods differ among groups. From a Rawlsian perspective on how to create equality of opportunity, policymakers would first need to measure how residents of concentrated poverty neighborhoods are faring in terms of resources. This apparently assumes a homogeneous public with similar levels of needs61. Yet, as Harvey points out, different groups have different elasticities in use of resources, so equality of opportunity depends on social context. For instance, if people lack “cultural motivation” to use parks, developing such facilities for them will not lead to a more just income distribution62. Housing opportunity is another of Harvey’s examples63: “Lowincome groups, for example often identify very closely with their housing environment and the psychological cost of moving is to them far greater than it is to the mobile upper middle class.” Suppose that metropolitan areas were reorganized so that each individual had the same level of resources and opportunities, or at least a threshold level: social services, amenities, education and work opportunities are distributed equally across the region, in a utopian spatial allocation. Yet, utility differs: “giving resources to people does not always bring differently situated people up to the same level of capability to function64”. Coming from different backgrounds, some may lack the ability to use resources in order to function better. In fact, Nussbaum argues that assuming resources benefit all equally “doesn’t sufficiently respect the struggle of each and every individual for flourishing65”.

48In a context of differing needs, a metropolitan landscape of equal opportunity may mean little. A few examples suffice to illustrate this point. Housing choice vouchers will disproportionately benefit those with the mobility to assess housing opportunity throughout a region, as well as those without special housing needs-and will not necessarily meet the needs of those who are attached to their neighborhood and do not wish to move. Having jobs in close proximity means little without the network resources to get hired66. Tax-base sharing may create more equality of resources, but the disadvantaged may be less able to convert resources into opportunity, so that equality of opportunity, or of primary goods, may never result in equal outcomes. In contrast, the capabilities approach looks at what it would actually take to realize a life plan, which may entail more resources, social supports, and/or other assistance.

The right to the city

49Another approach to social justice is the “right to the city67”, which encompasses the ideas of diversity, amenity, and visibility. Fostering diversity is key to justice because it helps us imagine alternative futures and life plans. The city makes possible encounters with people who are different, which in turn enriches experience. Thus the just city “ought to provide spaces in which valuably different forms of human activity can flourish68”.

50For the disadvantaged, being seen is just as important as seeing others. For Lefèbvre, the right to the city is essentially the right to inhabit, or the right of individuals and groups to shape the conditions of their existence in space. With the right to inhabit, oppressed groups can stay visible in the public eye. Possessing this “space for representation” helps give groups legitimacy in their struggles69.

51As inner cities revitalize-and as public housing becomes mixed-income development-affluent newcomers squeeze out the disadvantaged. This threatens urban diversity and even the visibility of the least well-off. It also suggests another right: the right to enjoy “renewed centrality70”: “The right to the city ought to refer to more than mere inclusion-it needs to encompass access to an appealing city71”.

52The spatial fix offered by dispersal and mobility strategies conflicts directly with the right to the city. Vouchered out of downtown public housing, the poor lose their centrality, visibility, and access to diversity. Commuting out to jobs in the suburbs, jobseekers lose their connections to the urban economy. Even tax base sharing does not facilitate the right to urban life, since it essentially subsidizes municipalities to keep their poor in place.

Conclusion: Does equity regionalism create a just metro?

53In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some 160 academics, led by Xavier de Souza Briggs and William Julius Wilson, suggested in a petition to Congress that there would be a silver lining as New Orleans residents would be able to “move to opportunity.” In stinging rebuttals, critics argued that policymakers and researchers supporting dispersal policies are imposing their own values and norms on the poor, and aim to make poverty invisible rather than address its causes72. By two years later, research had shown that the relocatees were faring worse than those who returned to New Orleans, regardless of whether they had moved to a stronger regional economy73. Perhaps opportunity is not enough to solve poverty.

54Casting justice in terms of equality of opportunity alone means neglecting the non-economic aspects of life-capabilities, social needs, urban life and vitality. Changing the spatial distribution of the population or remedying fiscal or service disparities may create a more optimal and equitable spatial allocation, but in some ways it fails to acknowledge basic human aspirations to live in security, in community, or in a revitalized core. In the case of regionalist dispersal programs, the attempt to achieve greater equality has even destroyed human dignity, in an uncanny replay of the urban renewal era74. It’s not that opportunity does not matter, but rather that these spatial fixes are dually flawed: they fail to acknowledge the strengths of urban life, and they deflect attention from the real problem, lack of federal initiatives and funding to address issues of poverty, inequality, and insecurity.

55The psychological literature on choice helps explain why pursuing equality of opportunity alone may not be the most just approach. Surveys have long shown that people strongly prefer stability to opportunity, given a choice between the status quo and uncertain future earnings75. The lower the income, the more choice is associated with fear, doubt, and difficulty: “While the upper and middle classes define freedom as choice, workingclass Americans emphasize freedom from instability76”.

56How is it that discussion of these policies continues, despite their shortcomings in addressing social equity? Arguably, they help build coalitions between the left and the right. Policies from dispersal to tax base sharing allow leftists to blame place rather than individuals-yet without blaming capitalism itself. Thus the left (as led by Loïc Wacquant77) remains enamored of the idea of an advanced marginality embedded in space, despite the rising deconcentration of the poor and their new exploitation in the era of Wal-Martization78. On the right, regionalist approaches gain support because they shift our gaze away from the defunding of anti-poverty and public housing programs, offering a set of solutions with low government cost (many of which also increase property values).

57In some arenas, a new bottom-up equity regionalism is upending these old top-down approaches. Though not explicitly inspired by alternative conceptions of justice, many are advocating approaches that build on basic human aspirations and needs, rather than get implemented in spite of them because of an undue focus on ends rather than means. A regional equity movement, or “social movement regionalism”, is building coalitions for economic justice, with considerable success in mobilizing constituencies at a regional scale for causes from living wages to community benefits79. Also emerging are informal regional governance strategies employed by networks of public, private, and civic actors. In particular, communitybased organizations are using networks to exert power at the regional, state, and federal levels, in a process of multi-level governance80. Finally, a string of community economic development successes has led some to argue that Rusk81 and others proclaimed the death of the inside game too soon.

58Though the “poor in a loomp” may well be bad, using a spatial fix to destroy or move the loomp may not be the solution.