The Citistates Group

Regionalists around the U.S. have a lot of mountains to climb — starting with the lead daily newspaper, the very voice they’d expect to cover if not champion their cause. Most say it never happens.

At Charlotte in mid-November, the Alliance for Regional Stewardship arranged a rare opportunity — getting the publisher, editor and editorial page editor of a major newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, to appear before a roomful of regionalists and explain how a 21st century newspaper deals with the new metropolitan realities.

Publisher Peter Ridder noted that at least half the Observer’s readership lives outside of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County — so that its market, by definition, is regional.

A question was fired from the audience: If you believe that, why don’t you push regionalism harder? Ridder’s reply: there’s a “thin line” between stewardship and boosterism. “If the market grows, we benefit (more readership, higher ad rates). But if a paper becomes boosterish, readers are turned off.”

Editor Jennie Buckner, known nationally as a leader in civic journalism, explained how the paper had straddled that thin line in undertaking major projects which solicited opinions from citizens rarely heard on such issues as neighborhood crime. “If we attempted to set an agenda, we’d be going too far. But it’s OK to convene a conversation.”

It’s all about engagement, said editorial page editor Ed Williams. “Don’t assume that if we’re not covering something you think is important, we’ve simply made up our minds to ignore you. If fact, there’s always more going on than we report, or even know about. Readers help educate us. Let us hear from you. Indeed, nothing’s more powerful than a letter to the editor — and we give preference to those who disagree with us.”

If regionalists want a paper to grasp and write about their agendas, the Observer crew said, the best formula is to get to know the reporters. Then talk early and fully with them and editors about issues and prospects — and definitely not wait until a hot, controversial issue is on the table.

It’s true, Buckner said, that zoned editions (the Observer also has them) can be a barrier to region-wide knowledge and policy discussions. A good strategy, she suggested, might be to talk to the editors once a year about two or three major, region-wide stories that regionalists believe need to be covered with depth, crossing beats and zone assignments, “connecting the dots” among major area-wide concerns and issues. The message to the editors would be: this is a big, complex story only you (the region’s leading newspaper) can handle.

– Reported by Neal Peirce and Curtis Johnson, who co-authored a 1995 Citistates report on an agenda for the 14-county Charlotte region, published over a month of Sundays in the Observer.

To weblog viewers: It’s obvious what a leading metro paper prints or doesn’t print on the emerging regional agendas can make a huge difference in setting the tone for the local civic dialogue. What’s your experience in dealing with your leading local newspaper? Are there other ways to create fruitful communications? Do newspapers, to accommodate thoughtful but perhaps intimidated readers and local leaders, need to institute new practices — maybe an open house or two to let the public in to talk with editors and writers? Let us hear your thoughts.

“Do nothing about regional governance and you will get it.”

That was the disturbing message to local governments offered by North Carolina State Sen. Dan Clodfelter at the Nov. 14-15 meeting of the Alliance for Regional Stewardship in Charlotte.

His reasoning: With the emergency fiscal condition states now face, and may face for years, massive cuts will be imperative. (See recent Peirce column or coverage at stateline.org.) So — either multi-county regions organize on their own to show they can deliver services efficiently, or state governments will preempt more and more areas.

Using North Carolina as an example, Clodfelter said: “We can’t afford 100 counties anymore.” Mental health functions are already on a population basis; lack of state money will force a minimum size on school districts the state supports. Splintering administration into many small units represents “a terribly inefficient way to deliver services.”

The choice for local governments, said Clodfelter: “Not whether to surrender authority, but to whom to surrender it. They can decide to share it (using joint powers they enjoy under law). Or the state government will take it.”

In local governments’ fat years of the ‘90s, few dreamed they’d ever face such tough choices. But today’s roaring budget deficits present a radically new reality. What are the choices/options you see, in your state?

(For more discussion on states outlooks and options, see the What’s New page posting, “Newly Elected - Listen Up”.)