February 2020
A huge building on the edge of its downtown reflects Fitchburg's rich industrial past. (Photo by Michael Jonas)

EVERY FEW YEARS, a lively discussion breaks out at the State House about what, exactly, makes a Gateway City. As the founder of the Gateway Cities Legislative Caucus in 2008, I take the question very seriously.

The term, coined by MassINC in a 2007 report, originally identified 11 “traditional mill cities” across the Commonwealth that had been regional economic hubs but faced a wave of deindustrialization and social challenges. When the definition was codified in state law in 2009, more cities were included, bringing the total to 26 municipalities.

The criteria in the statute are simple and include any city with a population greater than 35,000 but less 250,000, a median household income that’s below the state average, and a rate of educational attainment of a bachelor’s degree that’s below the state average.

In 2012, some state and city leaders sought to adjust the eligibility requirements, arguing that cities with populations of 20,000 or median household incomes above the state average should be included. As is the case today, they were motivated by the resources that may come with the formal designation, from tax credits to economic development opportunities to housing funding.

The current arguments for adding more Gateway Cities are exactly the same as those in 2012: cash-strapped communities would benefit from the funding set aside for Gateway Cities. Of course, supporting all our communities with affordable housing production, job growth, health care access, and educational opportunities remains a vital priority and should not be limited to a subset of cities. Legislation that protects vulnerable populations should always be championed.

These noble efforts, however, should not come at the price of addressing the unique challenges of Gateway communities. The real funding pot for Gateway Cities isn’t large—there are just three principal grant programs aimed at 26 cities:

1. The Housing Development Incentive Program, or HDIP, designed to help projects pencil out in locations where the private market has not functioned.

2. Greening the Gateway Cities, designed to increase tree cover in urban heat islands.

3. MassDevelopment’s Transformative Development Initiative, or TDI, which supports the local capacity to build public-private partnerships in key economic locations.

Defining Gateway Cities solely by census data that may fluctuate from year to year misses the forest for the trees. Gateway communities are far more than a convenient state formula, and they are identifiable just as much by a rich history of industrial economic activity as by population, income, and educational attainment. For me, Gateway Cities share three significant criteria in addition to the statutory metrics: industrial legacy, urban density, and service availability. Cities like New Bedford were once the economic heart of their region, boasting tens of thousands of well-paid manufacturing jobs, booming downtowns, diverse populations, and plenty of housing, hospitals, and schools.

Targeted state programs would not have been as effective if the definition of a Gateway City had been expanded to include municipalities that had neither an industrial legacy nor an urban core. After all, if suburban communities with high property values and well-performing schools are identified as Gateway Cities, but without downtowns, anchor institutions, or social services, the designation risks becoming altogether meaningless.

Moreover, if we rely exclusively on census data to define Gateway communities, we run into the problem of incoherence: some cities fall in and out of meeting the statutory criteria from year to year, making economic development strategies both impracticable and unsustainable.

In 2012, the Patrick administration sent a strong message by preserving the historic definition of Gateway Cities and so ensured that these vibrant communities continued to benefit from the targeted resources set aside for them.

This time around, I call on state leaders to stand by the long-term revitalization of Gateway Cities. Beyond legislation and programs, Gateway municipalities support each other because they are similar communities with similar challenges. There should be no hasty changes to the definition. Any future consideration of adjustments should be based on good data, a coherent framework, and involve collaboration with Gateway City leaders.

Nearly all the policies championed by our legislative caucus benefit every municipality since our communities represent a quarter of the state’s population, 44 percent of Massachusetts residents living below the federal poverty threshold, and just over 50 percent of the state’s nonwhite population. We ask our state partners to stand by us as we work to revitalize our communities and restore them to the regional job centers they once were.

Antonio F. D. Cabral is a state representative from New Bedford and House chair of the Gateway Cities Legislative Caucus.