Case Study: Las VegasWhat things in the movies last time were

related to Las Vegas?

• Desert City

• Fast growing

• Traffic

• Pollution

• Water issues

• People came there for a reason – why?

What are some differences?

• Fewer cities in the Valley

• Not as much sprawl. Why?

• Hemmed in by mountains and vast amounts of federally owned land

One thing they both have in common is that rapid growth made any organized planning regarding community needs or future needs difficult.

Both have a love/hate relationship with growth. Population growth is associated with economic prosperity, but also with crime, traffic congestion, crowding, environmental problems, etc.

• They both also face the dilemma/conflict between individual freedom and community well-being; between short term gain, and long term sustainability.

The Regional Economic Commons

• What does this mean?

• Commons refers to a common property resource

• A depletable asset or quality that is accessible to everyone and owned by no one

• Example: Fish

• Although many people in the United States live in urbanized areas, none is governed by a single governmental entity. An examination of the great metropolitan centers of the United States—such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Dallas, Houston, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle—reveals that each of these areas comprises many different units of government.

• No Single governmental entity is responsible for the range of local services and problems that are ordinarily associated with local governments.

• These local services and policies include street maintenance, traffic circulation, utility delivery, public transportation, education, public safety (police and fire protection), health and social services for the poor, solid waste management, air and water pollution regulation, and local planning and economic development.

• Even though a given metropolitan area constitutes an interrelated housing market, air and water basin, transport network, and ecological unity (a.k.a, a regional economic commons), there is little coordination among these many different local government bodies.

• Consolidation proposals have usually been rejected (Ross and Levine 1996, 321-82). Suburban local governments resist consolidation with central cities. Indeed, newer suburbs tend to resist interaction with older suburban areas.

Types of Regional Government

• City – County Consolidation: a county and the municipalities within it merge to form a single governmental unit. Nashville, Jacksonville, FL; Indianapolis.

• Two-Tier plan: county has some regional planning power but cities maintain control over local service provisions. Miami

• Three-Tier plans: County, cities, and a regional service district for some services like transportation. Portland

Solutions

• Regional government? (Minnesota?)• Coordinated investment/development• Upgrading the quality of regional

workforce• Enhancing economic development

infrastructure• A.K.A., human and physical capital

investment

Other Ideas

• Regional Tax base sharing: if a business moves into Clark county all county members benefit (share the profits). Jesse “the Body” Venture called a backer of the idea a communist.

• Why is it a good idea?

• Cities lose revenue by competing.

• With cooperation there is more tax revenue, therefore share isn’t a problem.

• Consolidation proposals have usually been rejected (Ross and Levine 1996, 321-82). Suburban local governments resist consolidation with central cities. Indeed, newer suburbs tend to resist interaction with older suburban areas.

Maybe Fragmentation is good

Public Choice scholars say:

• 1. the existence of many different governments in a given metropolitan area cannot be assumed to be inefficient as many of the advocates of traditional reform and consolidation suggest.

• 2. There has been no evidence that the fragmentation of government in metropolitan areas has led to actual breakdown in services.

• 3. Despite the desires and passion of consolidation advocates, a fairly broad coalition of central city and suburban residents, public officials, and private citizens arises to defeat consolidation proposals. Clearly many, if not most, metropolitan area residents are opposed to the consolidation of most functions into a single, regional, metropolitan government. Advocates of consolidation, then, seem elitist and too willing to impose their policies on the unwilling public.

• 4. Traditional reforms and consolidation advocates appear not to consider that many metropolitan residents place higher value on local control, access, and responsiveness.

• 5. Coordination does not require consolidation of governments. Voluntary agreements among clusters of local governments can produce coordination among those who value the results of such interaction, while permitting others who might value local autonomy more to operate individually.

• 6. Smaller local governments can contract with larger producers to receive services, thereby gaining production economies without sacrificing the intimacy of smaller governments. For example, a small locality might contract with the county for policing, fire protection, and planning. Or it might even contract with a large, national firm to provide legal services, planning, or garbage collection.

Critique of rational choice assumptions:

to mimic the market people must choose where they live in a similar way they shop for other goods. Ross and Levine - people don’t know the differences between tax issues between cities. People don’t easily move.

And (as we learn in PSC 320) the market often fails to reach an efficient equilibrium

Regionalism

• Economy of scale v. Fragmentation – Good in the private sector not in the political realm???

• McDonalds can lower costs because they don't have to rely on other middlemen and can use their purchasing power to negotiate cheaper contracts with other producers.

• But for cities, rational choice scholars often argue that larger jurisdictions produce a variety of diseconomies in labor costs and in the level of political conflict among different groups.

• The smaller the government, the smaller the range of people and the narrower the range of tastes and preferences, the less likely that political and cultural conflict will emerge. Example: Fremont, CA, public school

• Is this sectioning off of communities into homogeneous groups a form of segregation?

Is it really more efficient or is it just more efficient for some?

• often a group will seceded from a jurisdiction because it doesn't want to pay for services that they do not need or use. This is more efficient for them but not more efficient for the rest. We’d like to live away from the city in an affordable house, but extract our wage from the city because there are much more jobs/higher quality jobs there. We’d rather not have to pay taxes for the inner-city services because we don’t live there, we simply want to extract what we need, and give as little as possible (perfectly rational, not fair, but rational).

• The pattern of having metropolitan areas carved up into many different local governments is a reflection of a quasi-market-like expression of consumer choice.

• It is important to note how the creation and proliferation of suburban municipalities is characterized by references to motives like "the protection of property," "the maintenance of community norms," "the prevention of tyranny of the majority," “the defense of life styles," "the maximization of choice," "the assurance of citizen access," "the expression of consumer preference," and "emphasis on representativeness."

• However one can explain the creation and spread of small, homogenous suburban communities in terms less lofty motives.

• The impetus for suburbia also involves such impulses as expropriating tax base, excluding undesirable residents, minimizing public sector costs by shifting service demand to other jurisdictions, maintaining race and class exclusivity, and perpetuating unequal distributions of public service costs and resources.