13
Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Page 2: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Three Key Questions

What is Metro fragmentation?

What are the 2 positions regarding metro fragmentation?

What proposals have been offered to restructure the multi-centered metropolis and deal with fragmentation?

Page 3: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Fragmentation: Definition

The Proliferation of Local Governments in a Geographic Region (4 forms).– Increased # of Incorporated Communities– Overlapping of city and county functions– Existence of special districts– Extension of cross-state boundaries in MSA without

concern for state lines

Page 4: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Fragmentation in General: Median Metro Area

Total Number of Governments: 104– Counties: 2– Cities 24– Towns, townships 16– School Districts 19– Special Districts 43

Page 5: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Fragmentation in Clark County: # of Governments

County 1Cities 2Villages 9Townships 10School Districts 8 (inc. JVS)Special Districts 9– Total # of Governments= 39

Page 6: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Clark County Fragmentation in Comparison to All Ohio Counties

Total Number of Taxing Districts in Clark County = 57

Ave. number of Taxing Districts in Ohio’s 88 Counties = 50; range=18-133

Page 7: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Reformers (e.g., David Rusk)

Confusion in the responsibility for servicesReductions in political scrutiny and control (undemocratic)Political UnresponsivenessDuplication of EffortInequities in revenue and policyInefficiencies, therefore most costly

Page 8: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Decentralists (e.g., Charles Tiebout)

Suburban residents tend to be more concerned with incremental changesEfficiency is not the only value, e.g., access and lifestyle issuesPublic Choice School of ThoughtCentralization frustrates democracyLess costly due to smaller

Page 9: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Annexation Strategies

Most prevalent prior to WWI, but became harder due to stringent state laws requiring simultaneous majoritiesLargely a Southern and Southwestern phenomenon (extraterritorial jurisdiction, and spoke/finger annexation—Houston)

Page 10: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

City-County Consolidation

Only 4 have occurred involving more than 250,000Again, a Southern phenomenon: Baton Rouge—3 service zones: urban, rural, industrialReasons for success:– Some basic service has not being provided, or had broken

down– Special political factors (corruption—Jacksonville, unpopular

politicians—Nashville, significant change in partisan leadership—Indianapolis)

– Small Number of incorporated suburbs

Page 11: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Strengthening Urban County Government

Problems with traditional county government—Row officersNeed for professional managementUse of more home rule charters: Broward County, FL (Ft. Lauderdale)

Page 12: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Two-Tier/Federative Reform

Basic notion is that the county will work on system-maintenance services and municipals will provide lifestyle services.Miami-Dade; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Portland

Page 13: Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

Incremental Options

Metropolitan Planning: Federal incentives and the A-95 processAdvocacy PlanningCouncils of Governments (COGs)Central City decentralization (Berry, Portney, & Thomsan)One size does not fit all. States must help.David Rusk: Win-win annexation