I served as mayor of Hoboken for eight years, and one of the clearest lessons from that job was that climate resilience is not a branding exercise or a political talking point. It is a matter of economics.
When a city floods repeatedly, the damage does not stop at roads, parks or public works. It hits property values, small businesses, insurance costs, municipal budgets and investor confidence. That is why the federal government’s decision to reopen funding for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program deserves attention. For cities dealing with physical risk, this kind of investment is simply good business.
In Hoboken, we learned this lesson the hard way. For years, heavy rain routinely flooded streets, damaged homes, disrupted commerce and imposed recurring costs on residents and business owners. During my time as mayor, the city made resilience infrastructure a serious priority, and one of the most visible examples was ResilienCity Park. Built on the site of a former chemical plant, the park combines public space with stormwater infrastructure, including underground detention systems and green features that help manage runoff during major rain events. The project can hold roughly two million gallons of stormwater.
That kind of infrastructure has direct economic value. It helps protect homes and commercial property from repeated damage; it reduces business interruption; and it strengthens confidence in neighborhoods that would otherwise be seen as increasingly vulnerable. It also helps a city preserve its tax base rather than watch avoidable losses accumulate year after year.
That was the practical effect in Hoboken. Projects like ResilienCity Park, our other resiliency parks and Rebuild by Design reduced flooding and shortened recovery time when storms hit. Residents saw fewer disruptions, businesses were better able to keep operating, and property owners had more reason to believe the city was taking long-term risk seriously.
Financial markets also notice this kind of discipline. During my tenure, S&P Global Ratings repeatedly affirmed Hoboken’s AA+ credit rating, citing the city’s strong tax base and fiscal management as well as its resilience investments as part of its approach to long-term environmental risk. That matters because stronger credit lowers borrowing costs and gives cities more room to invest in future infrastructure. In other words, resilience planning can improve a city’s financial position, not just its flood defenses.
This is where too many conversations about resilience go off track. People often talk about these projects as though they sit outside the core business of economic development. They do not. A city that cannot manage physical risk will have a harder time protecting asset values, attracting investment, and maintaining fiscal stability. And delaying those investments only increases costs down the line.
Programs like BRIC are useful because they give local governments a chance to act before the larger bill arrives. Recovery after disaster is almost always more expensive than preparation beforehand. Federal support helps communities move projects from the planning stage into reality, especially when local leaders are trying to combine engineering, land use, and long-term capital planning into a workable strategy.
Federal funding, of course, is only part of the answer. Cities still need to use their own tools, including municipal bonds and other financing strategies, to pay for major adaptation projects over time. That was true in Hoboken, and it will be true elsewhere. But federal programs can make the difference between a city talking about resilience and a city actually building it.
That is the larger case for treating resilience as an economic issue. Flood protection, stormwater systems, and other adaptation projects help protect property, commerce, credit quality and long-term value. Cities that understand that will be in a stronger position than cities that continue to treat resilience as a secondary concern.
From where I sit, after eight years running Hoboken, the logic is straightforward: when a city reduces risk before disaster strikes, it protects both its people and its balance sheet.
