1. Metropolitan Governance

2. Problems of fragmentation 1.Racial imbalance 2.Income/resource imbalance 3.Increased business influence 4.Negative/positive externalities 5.Inflates housing prices; decreases housing supply 6.Irrational land use planning 7.Problems in service provision (duplication; economies of scale)

3. Three Types of Metropolitan Government City-County Consolidation: Nashville, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis Two-Tier Plan: Miami Three-Tier Plan: Portland and Minneapolis- St. Paul

4. Assessment Some areas were excluded: wealthy suburbs, school districts. Why? Suburbs benefited with more efficient service provision Minority power in inner-cities was diluted Regional planning did become more rational

5. When does Metropolitan Governance Work When it is imposed by the state? Regional tax base sharing? When the regional government possess real power.

6. Public Choice: –Competition = more efficient; more innovations –Polycentric = more choices –Economies of scale = big, unresponsive government –Mancur Olsen – smaller is better Is Metropolitan Government Desirable?

7. Metropolitanists: –Competition = irrational outcomes for public –Citizen are unaware of the choices –Choose were to live based on work and cost not local tax-service packages –Economies of scale = more efficient service provision –Fragmentation = sprawl = inefficiency –Externalities/spillover = unfair burden of urban amenities Is Metropolitan Government Desirable?

8. Problems with Regional Government Corrupt (Miami-Dade Co. &. Kendall, Florida) Overshadows local interests and needs

9. Is Metropolitan Government the Only Way? Easiest –Informal cooperation –Interlocal service contracts –Joint powers agreements –Extraterritorial powers –Regional councils/councils of governments –Federal encouraged single purpose regional bodies –State planning and development districts –Private contracting

10. Middling Local special districts Transfer of functions Annexation Regional special districts and authorities Metro mulipurpose district Reformed urban county

11. Hardest One-tier consolidation Two-tier restructuring Three-tier reforms

12. Easy Examples Informal Cooperation –El Paso and Ciudad Juarez Interlocal service contracts –Utilities, police and fire protection Joint powers agreements –Detroit suburbs mutual aid agreement Extraterritorial Powers –Houston, San Antonio – power over surrounding unincorporated areas Council of Governments –San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) Federally Encouraged Single Purpose Regional Bodies –CA Air quality control districts Private Contracting –Pittsburgh – cultural arts programs

13. Middling Examples Special Districts –Sanitation, Forest Preserve, Tuberculosis, school districts Transfer of functions –Atlanta and Fulton County; fire protection, sewage treatment Annexation –New York and Brooklyn; Los Angeles water Imperialism (China Town) Regional Districts and Authories –Orange County Transit Authority; Port Authority of New York Metropolitan Mulitpurpose Districts (rarely used) –Metropolitan Seattle District – mass transit, sewage, etc. Reformed Urban County –Strengthened county government –County administrator plan: part-time legislators hire full-time CAO –County Manger plan: even more power in the hands of professional executive –County executive plan: similar to strong mayor system

14. Why is it so hard to form regional alliances? Rational choice theory –Self-interested behavior –Rationality of free-riding Status quo is safer Business groups prefer fragmentation (on some issues) Racial discrimination

15. Non-regional solutions to sprawl? Better Policies not fewer governments Stop subsidizing growth by subsidizing extensions of highways and sewer and water lines Get rid of zoning laws that discourage mix use areas. Of course these probably require state intervention