[M II A II R II K]

Government fragmentation is holding back America’s metropolitan regions


1 April 2011

By Markus Berensson

http://www.citymayors.com/section-pics/banner_gov2.jpg

Read More: http://www.citymayors.com/government/us-government-fragmentation.html

What is a city? Defining New York, Chicago or Los Angeles is easier said than done. Where the border between a dense urban industrial, cultural and political center and the outside world was clear a century ago this is no longer the case. Take any major American metro area today and there will be both a central city – the political entity of New York, Chicago or Los Angeles that once was the metropolis – but also an urban landscape of millions of people that begins wherever the city limit ends. Once there, on the outside, you will be inside an older suburb that looks very much like a city and beyond that endless rows of single family homes, condominiums, supermarkets, malls, office parks, industries and parking lots where people live, work and shop.

- The social and economic lines between city and country and city and suburb have faded and millions of people within a metropolitan area like Greater New York, Chicago or Los Angeles move in intricate patterns across jurisdictional lines on a daily basis. The historical American city has developed into an urban region that emanates from a core, like Manhattan, but where the outlying parts no longer exclusively communicate with the center, but also with each other in what the urban thinker Myron Orfield, in his book Region: planning the future of the Twin Cities, has described as “an extremely complex mosaic where jobs and housing are scattered across large areas governed (in most metros) by large numbers of local governments.”

- No matter how much an independent suburb wants to set itself apart from the central city or its suburban and exurban neighbors when it comes to taxes, schools and transportation the citizens of metropolitan areas rely on a vast array of investments in regional infrastructure and amenities (tangible and intangible benefits of a location) if the metro should function and grow. Urban centers, with their high population densities and increased social interactions demand a more vigorous collective urban service provision.

- Every locality needs large-scale and long-term investments in roads, highways, public transport, sewage systems, airports, harbors, schools, universities and cultural institutions that depend on the involvement of many local governments to prosper. How then, is the economic growth of a metropolitan area affected by a fragmented regional governance structure? Can any of the difference between a slow-growing metropolitan area like Pittsburgh, PA – with its six counties and 412 municipalities – and rapidly expanding Phoenix, AZ – with its two counties and 32 municipalities – be explained by how the two areas are governed?

- Proponents of regionalism have long argued that extensive government fragmentation will impede regional economic development since it obstructs the realization of economics of scale in service delivery as well as limits or sometimes even prevents “adequate investments” in regional infrastructure from taking place. As the American economist Charles Tiebout pointed out in the early 1960s, when many smaller jurisdictions act independently of each other there was not only the possibility that potential economics of scale and scope remained unrealized, but that some forms of services and investments that might benefit the metropolitan area as a whole might never be undertaken at all.

- I found that a higher number of counties in a metropolitan area does indeed have a negative effect on infrastructure expenditure, indicating that regionalist have been right – increased government fragmentation leads to less infrastructure investments on a metropolitan level. Because of this, a regional governance structure (which doesn’t have to take the form of one single general-purpose government but could consist of several special-purpose districts such as a public transit authority with regional powers) within a metropolitan area would lead to a more efficient administration and public service provision.

- This means that even though a successful Pennsylvania suburb may feel completely independent from the blight of downtown Philadelphia, cities and suburbs are in fact interdependent. Suburbs benefit when their core cities are viable – that is, densely populated and prosperous – since they are part of the same economic region and rely on up-to-date infrastructure.

.....




http://www.citymayors.com/pics_development/cincinnati_suburb.jpg http://www.citymayors.com/pics_development/cincinnati_downtown.jpg

[miketoronto]

That is true, and government fragmentation is an issue which needs to be addressed in American cities.

"but where the outlying parts no longer exclusively communicate with the center"

I also think the sentence above is a large issue. If outlying residents are no longer connected with the core of the region, than it is hard for residents in a metropolitan area to feel connected to anything that is "common" to everyone.
The cores of our cities must be made viable again for all residents in the metropolitan area. And everyone must feel an ownership in it.

[CentralGrad258]

I agree with the overarching theme of the article, but the examples it uses are sloppy and detract rather than support the arguments its promoting. For example, there is plenty of blight in Philadelphia, but the downtown is absolutely flourishing. The differences in the growth between Pittsburgh and Phoenix vis-a-vis the number of counties/municipality is a classic case of correlation not being equal to causation. Just sloppy work, IMO.

Having said that, I agree on the overall thesis that the lack of coordination within metropolitan regions is not helpful. Just looking at infrastructure, you could see how a comprehensive plan for getting people and goods around would is an improvement over a piecemeal approach.

[quattordici]

I definitely agree with the basic idea of it. I know I beat a dead horse, always talking about Birmingham or some other Alabama city, but here I go again. I believe the main reason Birmingham isn't what it could be is the fact that there are so many cities in Jefferson County. While one third of the county lives in Birmingham, there are countless cities, suburbs, and towns that have individual governments. All of them range from some of the richest in the country to some of the poorest, and none of them are capable of working together unless they have slightly similar demographics. Confusing, eh?

I think we're going to see a trend in the future of cities and counties trying to merge and consolidate under a single government. Of course, who knows how successful any of those ventures will be.

[TarHeelJ]

I definitely agree with the basic idea of it. I know I beat a dead horse, always talking about Birmingham or some other Alabama city, but here I go again. I believe the main reason Birmingham isn't what it could be is the fact that there are so many cities in Jefferson County. While one third of the county lives in Birmingham, there are countless cities, suburbs, and towns that have individual governments. All of them range from some of the richest in the country to some of the poorest, and none of them are capable of working together unless they have slightly similar demographics. Confusing, eh?

I think we're going to see a trend in the future of cities and counties trying to merge and consolidate under a single government. Of course, who knows how successful any of those ventures will be.

I'm thinking it's the same story in most U.S. metros...just in the 2 counties where Atlanta is located, there are 24 established city governments along with 16 census designated places (many of which are looking to incorporate). That is just Fulton and Dekalb County...there are 28 counties in Metro Atlanta, which adds another dimension - county government. It's amazing anything EVER gets done.

[Troubadour]

A big obstacle to regional governance is an overly steep wealth gradient between different areas of the region. It's usually rich areas (I won't call them "communities," because they really have no internal cohesion) that drive secessionist referendums and obstruct infrastructure projects in order to increase their property values, even if the result is economically negative for the region.

They create archipelagos of parochial, feudal politics that impede and complicate large-scale planning, and infrastructure planners have to avoid them like the plague so their projects don't become mired in NIMBYism.

Even when they're vastly outnumbered, these "hairballs" can wreak havoc because residents may be influential on the state or even federal level and cause political interference from outside the region.

[dimondpark]

The solution is to limit the power of counties and empower regional or metropolitan governments that can act for the best interests of an entire region or metro area. I do see the need for something like that particularly in the US, where metro areas are physically vast.

There could be a Metropolitan governor and a regional council of legislators.

On the one hand it makes sense, but on the other hand it seems like another layer of government.

[M II A II R II K]

Then there's the case of what happened in places like Bell and Maywood California prompted by too many municipalities.

[brickell]

The solution is to limit the power of counties and empower regional or metropolitan governments that can act for the best interests of an entire region or metro area. I do see the need for something like that particularly in the US, where metro areas are physically vast.



I agree with this. One of the biggest problems in Florida is fights between counties and cities. Many counties here act as their own municipalities with all the zoning and tax income related to that. This promotes city/county fighting and sprawl on the edges.

I'd like to see county government pared way down. Let city municipalities handle zoning and get more regional and metropolitan governments take over ports, airports, water/sewer, etc.

[Policy Wonk]

The sheer wonder that is Mega-City Toronto and Los Angeles County (which is larger than several states) shows this is an issue best left be.

The other practical concern is while it might seem appealing to build the tax base through amalgamating suburbs - those suburbs will come with voters, probably angry and reactionary voters who will vote for aldermen and mayors with platforms along the lines of "Hulk Smash Transit, Hulk Smash Taxes".

[miketoronto]

But why does acting as one have to mean one large government?

Look at Australian cities. Their metropolitan regions are made up of hundreds of much smaller city councils that you find in North America. Yet all the suburbs and city work together and act as one city.

If you read things from Australia, you will notice that even if a suburb is like 50 km out of the city centre, they still call it northern Sydney or Melbourne, etc. Even though it is a totally different city council.

I also remember watching a TV newscast on a new rail line in Sydney, and the mayor of Paramatta a large suburb was saying that he hopes the rail was extended to Paramatta, because the western area of Sydney needs better rail.

They act as one. Transit is one. Often police is one, and other services. Yet everyone still has their local councils.

Canadian cities were also similar to Australian cities in treating the metro areas as one city and not fragmenting. However since the 1990's, Canadian suburbs have gone the way of their American counterparts in wanting to act like separate cities of their own, and not part of a metro region. The most famous being Mississauga.

But overall, acting as one and working together does not mean having to have one large city council.

[quattordici]

The problem is that you have a city forming anytime a group of citizens gets together and decides that they don't wanna be encroached upon. Then, before you know it, they're complaining about being in the city limits and they're leaving. It's all pointless.

There are around 30 incorporated towns and cities in Jefferson County, AL. Half of them aren't necessary. Thing is though, there's no law against it. Only thing you can do is try to reform in some way, like forming a metropolitan government.

[M II A II R II K]

London started off smaller and ended up gobbling up the surrounding already existing towns around it.

[dave8721]

The problem is that you have a city forming anytime a group of citizens gets together and decides that they don't wanna be encroached upon. Then, before you know it, they're complaining about being in the city limits and they're leaving. It's all pointless.

There are around 30 incorporated towns and cities in Jefferson County, AL. Half of them aren't necessary. Thing is though, there's no law against it. Only thing you can do is try to reform in some way, like forming a metropolitan government.

There are 35 incorporated cities in Miami-Dade County and Miami is the largest at a giant 35 square miles. A dozen of them are 2 square miles or less.

[J. Will]

In Canada, many times a bunch of smaller towns/cities are consolidated into one larger city by the provincial governments. The Greater Toronto Area, with 6 million people, only has about 25 municipalities for example.

[M II A II R II K]

In Canada, many times a bunch of smaller towns/cities are consolidated into one larger city by the provincial governments. The Greater Toronto Area, with 6 million people, only has about 25 municipalities for example.

Those municipalities are at least relatively geographically large, and about 40% of those people are in the one megacity in the borough system.

[KB0679]

You can't talk about government fragmentation without talking about the race and class issues that lead to much of it in the first place. This is much more evident in the metro in which I now reside compared to the one I came from.

[Beta_Magellan]

I’m surprised no one in this thread’s mentioned Unigov—the government that came out of the merger between Indianapolis and Marion County. Indianapolis’s mayor, Dick Lugar (now a US senator), did it in part to cement Republican control of the region, since there was some risk of Indianapolis itself turning Democratic. Of course, now Indianapolis is pretty Democratic, which is turning into an issue for those who are advocating the next step in Unigov—merging Marion County with the surrounding, high-rate-of-growth counties.

I don’t know anything about the practical effects of Unigov, though—has it fulfilled its promises of more efficient government?

[LMich]

I don’t know anything about the practical effects of Unigov, though—has it fulfilled its promises of more efficient government?

I'm not sure about the efficiencies, but it seems the Unigov hasn't had much affect in keeping people from fleeing the central-urban core of the city: Center Township (42 square miles). Center Township has continued to empty out going from a population of 167,055 in 2000 to 142,787 in 2010, a drop of nearly 15% which revivals the decline in similar cities in neighboring states, but gets covered up by the fact of the expansive city limits. But, I guess paying lower taxes in a declining area is better than paying higher taxes in a declining area.

KB0679 kind of hit it on the head, though. Even in a consolidated place like Indy, the communities still maintain seperate school districts. Indianapolis Public, which serves the old city, is a majority black/minority district like just about every other urban school district in most of the country. So long as folks are able to complain about "bad schools" - without every confronting the fact that these happened because of self-fulfilling prophecies - I don't know what kind of benefits you have with metropolitan government, here, beyond fiscal issues. That's not an insignificant benefit, but I don't see many others.

[Young Gun]

There are 35 incorporated cities in Miami-Dade County and Miami is the largest at a giant 35 square miles. A dozen of them are 2 square miles or less.

we have several in Dauphin County, PA that are less than .5 miles and literally border the largest city, use all the same street names, continuing the numbering scheme of our streets. 32 st, 33 st, etc.

town of less than 3k maintaining a separate police force, council, etc. Worse than inefficiencies is the fact that a small town can't attrach the business development and investment that the larger towns in the area can so you have a perpetually low income families with little chance at opportunities of self improvement. The town will suffer a declining tax base until it is strangled.

[dave8721]

we have several in Dauphin County, PA that are less than .5 miles and literally border the largest city, use all the same street names, continuing the numbering scheme of our streets. 32 st, 33 st, etc.

town of less than 3k maintaining a separate police force, council, etc. Worse than inefficiencies is the fact that a small town can't attrach the business development and investment that the larger towns in the area can so you have a perpetually low income families with little chance at opportunities of self improvement. The town will suffer a declining tax base until it is strangled.

Its kind of the opposite case down here. Sunny Isles Beach for example is 1 square mile but it is composed almost entirely of super luxury towers with a population of 25,000+ people per square mile despite the fact that half its units are only seasonally occupied. Golden Beach is a city with only a couple of hundred residents but the average sale price of a home in that city last year was around $2 million. Indian Creek Village is another 1 square mile city with only 80 people and an average home sale price over $5 million. Most of South Florida's tiny cities were formed by super wealthy residents so they could lower their property taxes (not have to pay the higher property taxes of neighboring cities). In other words the rich people form their own city so they don't have to subsidise the poor living in neighboring (much larger) cities.

[pesto]

Its kind of the opposite case down here. Sunny Isles Beach for example is 1 square mile but it is composed almost entirely of super luxury towers with a population of 25,000+ people per square mile despite the fact that half its units are only seasonally occupied. Golden Beach is a city with only a couple of hundred residents but the average sale price of a home in that city last year was around $2 million. Indian Creek Village is another 1 square mile city with only 80 people and an average home sale price over $5 million. Most of South Florida's tiny cities were formed by super wealthy residents so they could lower their property taxes (not have to pay the higher property taxes of neighboring cities). In other words the rich people form their own city so they don't have to subsidise the poor living in neighboring (much larger) cities.

I would have thought that the value of these properties would go up until the savings in taxes was completely offset by the higher purchase price.

Maybe there are other factors as work, such as some people prefer smaller suburban towns and others more urban environments, etc.

[M II A II R II K]

Despite people's preferences there's still the issue of over fragmentation which wastes money and promotes more corruptable self interest.

[waltlantz]

Problem is, how do you convince people that consolidation is actually money well spent?

Regional governments seem to work better in Metropolitan Europe for various reasons (look at Ile de France, most people in the region don't even live in Paris).

The Australian mega-city examples are interesting. Still, cities evolved differently there, as they did in Europe and theirs are different from ours. So it's not quite apples to apples.

[M II A II R II K]

Consolidation is the wrong response


02 May 2011

By Charles Marohn

Read More: http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/14654/consolidation-wrong-response

Consolidation is the current least-painful way to avoid dealing with the underlying financial problems of our cities and towns. But like consolidation in the banking sector, municipal consolidation will only amplify the underlying fragilities inherent in our development pattern. A better solution would be to embrace the innovations — and failures — that would come from thousands of local experiments in adapting to our current financial situation. Our state and local governments are in a bit of a pickle. The gravy train from Washington — which was not all that great, really — has stopped running. The good old days — which weren't really all that good, in retrospect — are long gone. "Recovery" seems a distant dream. And on top of it all, the electorate (that's us) seems mad as hell and unwilling to wait for any type of long-term "transformation" to take place.

- What's a decent local politician to do? The first thing to try is to borrow money, spend the rainy day fund and cook the books a little hoping this whole thing will blow over soon. Been there and done that. The next thing is to borrow seriously more money, try some "stimulus" in the form of more spending and/or less taxes, and basically inject some adrenaline into the heart of the economy to try and bring it back to life. Charging ... clear ... charging ... clear ... Now we are at the point where we start to talk about changing the way we do things. In other words, we've come kicking and screaming into the "transformation" phase. But this is the early transformation phase, that part of the cycle of decline where we try and change without really having to actually change. And what better way to make non-substantive change than consolidation.

- Consolidation is a response to the notion that our problem is essentially one of efficiency. The idea is that local governments are not efficient enough and therefore we can increase efficiency by combining them into fewer governments. Like the banking sector, fewer players means more efficiency. And like banks, fewer players will amplify fragility. Take school consolidation as an example. Consolidating schools is something that has been going on since the early 1900's, but it became one of the "solutions" to the budget problems of the late 1970's and early 1980's. And while there is little argument that consolidation of schools allows for greater efficiency, it comes at a cost.

- The need for innovation is the key reason why we should not be seeking the consolidation of local governments. Lack of efficiency is not our problem. Lack of innovation is. And not the type of innovation that manifests itself in saving a few dollars on paper clips. What we need is the type of innovation that provides different responses to the same stresses. Our biggest problem as a nation right now is that our places are generally all vulnerable to the same things. That is because we have all used the same cookbook (standard zoning) and the same Mechanisms of Growth (government transfers, transportation spending and debt) to get to where we are now. When gas prices rise, our cities struggle. When growth slows or stalls, our cities go into decline. When government aid goes away, our places start to implode. This lack of resilience will only be covered up by consolidation, the day of reckoning pushed off and made more difficult as a result.

.....

[pesto]

I tend to agree with this article. It is well-established that in most industries there is a limit beyond which inefficiencies grow more rapidly than efficiencies. However, this limit is likely to vary for different types of services (sidewalk maintenance, building rehab, transit, power delivery, welfare administration and oversight, etc.). The market usually finds this size since the inefficient get weeded out.

The exitence of moderate sized cities, larger counties and occasional "metro" sized agencies is a response to this. Undoubtedly some smaller cities could be consolidated, but a general rule is hard to state. There could also be a move toward cities of 200k or so through break-ups of unwieldy larger cities, delivering poor services and reaching poor decisions by always trying to find consensus.

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe it's more to do with what constitutes and defines a local region more naturally as opposed to artificially chopping it up or lumping too much in one pot. And to strike the right balance to avoid the law of diminishing returns.