All of this happened in the same state.
One city depended heavily on a major industry with a few employers. The other city initially depended on one industry but with multiple employers and with less dependency on the whims of the market. Over time, its business picture became more diverse.
The major employers in the first case had owners who usually lived out of state. The owners in the second city lived in the community and had far greater interest in its improvement.
The first city was older and had a proud history. The second city was much younger and its focus was on the future. Its founders were a mixed bunch but they were creative, ambitious, and highly energetic.
The first city had a milder climate. The second had a harsh climate but the residents took major steps to mitigate its effects and to convince others that the climate was desirable..
The first city had no peers in the nearby geographic area. Its civic leaders had little competition. The second city was surrounded by smaller communities with different sets of leaders.
The first city mocked the boosterism of the second city. Its citizens eventually defined their community as not being as growth-oriented as the second city. The citizens in the second city rarely thought of the first city at all; in fact, they considered their rivals to be cities in other states.
The first city saw its city government turn into a spoils system with strong partisan divisions. The second city fostered a climate of civic cooperation that could gloss over problems in the name of unity but which also produced results and attracted businesses.
It is no great mystery as to why the second city eventually surpassed the first one.
The change arrived one day at a time.
No comments:
Post a Comment