During the very short life of this blog, I’ve posted about “Regionalism” a few times (most obviously here), but whenever I’ve posted about it, it’s been out of some sort of impulse — a gut sense that it’s the right solution (backed by some reading), but without semblance of a way to begin to think about how to implement regional solutions to local and regional problems.
That’s why I was grateful for this weekend’s editorial in the Courant, which lays out a pretty strong case for both the “whys” and “hows” of regional solutions.
I’m even more grateful for Amy Bergquist’s blog, which has a great post about the editorial and which encourages conversation about regionalism as an idea. The post is a must click in the “regionalism conversation,” and may provide a useful common ground for constructive conversation (yes, that means from you) that challenges how we define ourselves as towns, as cities, and as a “metropolitan” area.
We can bicker all we want about taxes and budgets, but in the end, we need to recenter our conversation around the greater social problems (read: poverty, segregation and their consequences) our area faces and the responsibilities each of us has in light of those problems. The post on Amy’s blog may provide a touchstone to refocus ourselves after a bitter budget debate that, in context, not only appears more symptomatic than problematic, but allows us to too easily become complacent in the face of our contemporary ethical crises.