After Baltimore, what can feds do to help cities?

President Obama mentioned gun violence in Chicago in his 2013 State of the Union, but for a specific, presidential mention of cities as a target of federal policy in a major speech you have to go back to Bill Clinton, when he introduced Empowerment Zones.

Finally, Obama is saying it's time for some national soul-searching on urban poverty and police abuse, as well as the lack of governmental and corporate investment that's been far more destructive to places like Baltimore than a relatively short and controlled riot. This means we ought to be asking how we've tolerated vast societal inequity and indeed, according to New York Times business columnist Eduardo Porter, stunningly poor social health in comparison with our peer wealthy nations. In Freddie Gray's Baltimore neighborhood, Sandtown-Winchester, only 6 percent of residents have a bachelor's degree, life expectancy is far below the national average, and unemployment is double the citywide rate, the Times' Scott Shane reported. A higher proportion of Sandtown-Winchester residents are incarcerated than anywhere else in Maryland.

It's time, then, to once again talk about what the federal government can do for cities.

Porter says American social health levels were above or equal to many of our peers until 1980, when the federal government began systemic disinvestment in housing, education, and health. At that point, America was only a decade and a half into the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson; tax and social policies were meant to both create new opportunities for groups historically left out of the economic mainstream and protect people from the destructive nature of capitalism.

Gains were certainly made, most specifically in providing a cushion against the massive economic shifts caused by deindustrialization, the kind of policy our peer nations still pursue. The 1970s was the worst decade in the history of urban America but it would have been significantly worse without public spending. Much of that spending on education and health care actually laid the groundwork for the research and technology-based economy that's so critical to many cities today. Indeed, it's wise to remember that the federal government has always played a direct financial role in American economic development. Which brings us back to Baltimore, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and so many other urban centers. Though they suffer from persistent racialized poverty, they are also growing as magnets for economic and social innovation.

For the first time in more than 50 years, cities and not suburbs are driving the nation's culture. This ought to mean that urban policy can be transformative and not just palliative, if we can marry federal social and economic policy to the surge of bottoms-up innovation that has, since 2005, transformed the American urban landscape. We ought to seize the urban moment.

It's true that in many U.S. cities, including Philadelphia, the flood of private-sector investment has intensified class stratification; gentrification is forcefully remaking the urban landscape. It's now almost impossible to find a $100,000 house in a near-in neighborhood with a decent elementary school. But the street protests of the last year tell us that the growing city can produce a broad and powerful political coalition to address urban inequality.

In 1964, not only were Philadelphia police hostile to African Americans, but white neighborhoods were still defined by defensive hatred magnified by urban renewal and other federal programs. This is largely no longer the case. Today's urban residents — often immigrants and millennials — are by nature integrationists, seekers of diversity of all kinds, and driven by sharing. Bike sharing, car sharing, tool sharing, sharing social space, collaboration, partnerships, outreach, and fearlessness all define our present urban age. In Philadelphia, residents of all ages and races are embracing public space and public life. It's no wonder that we're experiencing a revival in street protest.

Protesters understand that issues of police brutality toward African Americans can't be separated from larger causes of inequality. Reengineering the American economy will take time. But they need their political leaders to acknowledge now that black lives, indeed cities, matter. The federal government, in fact, can immediately initiate simple policies to encourage states to tackle persistent inequality at the municipal level. It can set federal standards for the protection of those held by police and reward cities that institute protective measures; encourage states to resolve educational inequality through fair funding of schools (aiding urban and rural communities); initiate sentencing reform; and incentivize states to enable cities to reduce gun crime (Philadelphia is dependent on the state to enact laws). A system of "rewards" would follow on the successful Medicaid expansion, one of the largest federal commitments to cities in a generation, and a sign, perhaps, that the federal government is willing to respect the nation's cities again.

Author Nathaniel Popkin is editorial director of Hidden City Philadelphia (www.hiddencityphila.org) and senior writer of the film documentary "Philadelphia: The Great Experiment" (www.historyofphilly.com) nathaniel.popkin@gmail.com