Comments on: Replay: An Examination of City-County Consolidation

By: Tom Jones

Tom Jones — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:37:20 +0000

It seems strange to give so much credence to two people who are the professional \expert\ who opposes government modernization throughout the U.S. They’re like the psychiatrist who shows up at the murder trial to explain why every one else is wrong. For mid-sized cities struggling to compete in this economy and with disproportionate public sector costs and inefficiencies. It’s easy to find research to support either side of most governance questions, but the 100 cities looking at consolidation indicate how desperate our communities are for practical solutions than academic navel-gazing.

By: Gingerman

Gingerman — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:10:03 +0000

Good post Aaron. I’ll check out the paper.

In the meantime, I’d say that in any practical sense, the “consolidation” in Indianapolis and Louisville are in name only and are worth virtually nothing.

Without appreciable efficiencies and cost savings resulting from a substantial combination of governance and administrative functions, I see no justification for the exercise.

Moreover, I find it extremely short-sighted that poorer segments of a region should subsidize wealthier areas.

Precisely the reverse should be the case, should be a principal object of consolidation: bringing everyone closer to the middle, economically. The region as a whole will benefit from lifting everyone’s boat together, and the region will be weighed down to the extent that any one part of it lags significantly behind the rest.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:20:24 +0000

Aaron: yes, but those elites that are capable of influencing government have conflicting interests, and have since the 1960s.

For example, take unions and business. On the local level, both have a vested interest in beggar-thy-neighbor policies and in promoting the status quo. But on the federal level, which sets minimum wages, labor regulations, and laws governing union behavior, their interests are opposed. This brings ideology into politics, and thence the voters. In fact some of the cleanest governments in the world make law by having representatives from unions, business, and government meet together and hash out details on wages and benefits.

By: Free lunch

Free lunch — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:40:21 +0000

Nearly every government proposal is intended to consolidate power – that is a given!

Infrastructure is not even consolidated. All local roads are under the jurisdiction of the respective excluded and included cities, as well as all (excluded) or some (included) of the other standard municipal services.

And even with planning and zoning, three of the four excluded cities have their own Boards of Zoning Appeals and their respective councils make zoning recommendations to the MDC.

And TIF’s are just another way for developers, etc to steal money from other taxpayers, with the help of the government (Corporatocracy), so that they can be further enriched. And don’t tell me they are taking risks; there is no risk involved when someone uses and abuses other people’s money.

By: The Urbanophile

The Urbanophile — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:29:50 +0000

Alon, I think you are making the point. At the federal level, only large corporations, unions, and other extremely well financed interest groups – i.e., power elites – have any ability to influence the system, whether it is corrupting or no. In small local governments, even organized neighborhood groups can get the city’s attention.

Though I will say that the higher up the food chain you go, the easier it has been to push through new policy directions.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:12:38 +0000

I don’t think it’s obvious that larger bureaucracies are less efficient. The example of Washington actually goes the other way: the feds may be corrupt and inefficient, but the local governments are even worse. The federal government is ideological and has diffuse power base, which means that decisions are based on general principles and lobbyists have to spend considerable effort on corrupting the process. Local governments are the opposite: the same developers and business interests stay in power, because the local power structure is small enough that a few people can dominate it. On the local level, an individual or a small group of individual can buy elections; on the federal level, campaigns are so expensive candidates need to raise money from a diverse set of sources.

For the same reason, at the federal level the President tends to be cleaner than Congress.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:15:49 +0000

Let’s assume there is no cost saving from consolidation. I would still argue that everyone is better off. While elites might channel tax dollars to cronies for overpriced civic projects, in the end they are still business people. Entrepreneurs and corporate site selectors can work with them. On the other hand, when the central jurisdiction is run by “community organizers,” private employers will drift away and not be replaced. The inner city residents have a better chance of being employed and receiving municipal services in the long run if the county is a functioning business environment rather than a donut or dying region.