You didn’t make an argument why it is wrong. You just said that it is easier to swing local elections, and that our form of government prioritizes responsiveness to the people (which isn’t really the case, as witnessed by staggered terms for many offices, the electoral college, and an independent judiciary). I can’t see where you made a reasoned argument that local government is less corrupt.
You seem to think the problem is that affluent people don’t want to live in cities. That is a problem but it is being corrected by gentrification, as discussed in this thread and this. But the effect might be to drive the poor and working classes out to neoslums in the falling-value burbs – leaving them even worse off than they are now, since they can’t afford an auto-dependent lifestyle. (Apparently, this has already happened in Toronto.) No, the problem is the segregation of different classes within the same region into different local political units.
Huh? The fact that big sections of DC are poor is because rich Bethesda elects its own city council?
How do you explain rich Washington/poor Washington (or rich New York/poor New York; choose your example) are governed by the same elected institutions?
What’s the big problem now that requires such a radical plan to be implemented?
In the sense that a larger tax-base might make them less poor – not directly, but in a lot of indirect ways that are within the scope of a city/metro/state government’s powers.
You want to use a sledgehammer to hang a picture on the wall if you think that is the primary problem that needs fixing. You also need to support why that IS a problem in the first place. You can’t stop segregation of some sort from happening. People do it on their own and it isn’t always based strictly on race, ethnicity, or even simple socio-economics. People generally choose to live where there are others like them and that is due to a mix of factors.
I, and many others, think it is good to have lots of ‘local political units’ rather than have every group amalgamated into a giant mess that doesn’t represent anyone very well. That way, people can do what is best for their immediate community and concerns rather than worry about the competing concerns with different communities a few miles away that may have completely different priorities. Everyone gets a collective voice that way. Under your model, some groups probably never would and a lot of people would cast their votes based on issues that they have little everyday personal experience with.
You seem to like centralization and central planning a whole lot and take it as a matter of orthodoxy that it is always or even usually better than more local control. You may want to explain to us why you think that way and try to push it so hard because the merits of that line of thinking are far from clear even among different schools of liberal thought.
There’s nothing radical about it, really. See the OP – many states have laws that allow cities to routinely annex land on their borders as soon as it reaches a certain population density, it has always been so. I’m just arguing that all states should do it that way. (My city-states idea is radical, but tangential to the main topic; probably needs its own thread anyway.) There was nothing radical about the Jacksonville Consolidation, it was just a good-government reform project.
If your answer is that larger tax bases fight segregation, then why do you suggest that urban areas form their own states? Surely getting rid of states (along with city and county governments) would be an even better solution. We could just have regional governments: one for the Mid-Atlantic, one for the Midwest, one for New England, etc.
Do you have a theory on how far we could consolidate governments away from local levels and still have it be successful, or more importantly, supported by the people?
Because it appears to be so whenever I look at anything specific. That does not necessarily prove it so in general, but it does suggest that. For instance, as discussed in this thread, one of the two main real problems with American election administration is that it is localized. (The other is that it is elected/partisan.) Education, law enforcement, public library services, utilities, transportation, planning and zoning and growth management – all seem to work better, be done more rationally and equitably and efficiently and with better sharing and better allocation of resources, when done on a county (or even state, depending on function and circumstances and size-of-state) scale-and-level rather than a town scale-and-level.
Well, we already have states supported by the people, some of them larger than many foreign countries, so that sets a high ceiling right there. As for how far to consolidate, I’m thinking, just look at a satellite-map of any MSA. You can see where the contiguous urban and suburban areas give way to open countryside – draw the boundary there, including a strip of countryside within the border as a manageable greenbelt.
Well, different thread.
For that matter, I don’t see where in that thread anyone made an argument for why Lind’s Law is right.
This. People want to get out of cities because they are corrupt, crime-infested shitholes. But instead of cleaning up the city, the solution is to force people who don’t want to be there to support the corruption? Count me out.
There is no problem that bigger and more government can’t solve. Even if there is no problem, more and bigger government can rectify that as well. What a terrible terrible place that would be to live.
It kept the Mayor’s office white for the ensuing forty years (until 2011), as well as the at-large council seats until they were turned into large districts. By contrast, Tallahassee (which has rejected consolidation four times) elected an African-American mayor in 1972, Raleigh and Atlanta in 1973. Parts of Jacksonville’s African-American community have consistently viewed the Consolidation as a Dixiecrat power grab, and there have been efforts to overturn it as recently as 2007.
Like I said, it wrecks minority voting power.
As I said on the other thread, it’s funny to me that no matter how negatively this writer spins it, even though her article is the only source of information I have on this plan, it sounds fucking awesome and incredibly well thought out. Go Twin Cities!
This is bogus. Those suburbs would never have been created in the middle of nowhere. They are piggybacking on the established cities, trying to take what suits them but wash their hands of dealing with the poor or curbing sprawl. Nuh uh.
Spot on. Look at France, where the suburbs are where immigrants and the poor live while the more affluent residents live in the center city.
It is policies that ensure “majority minority” voting districts which diminish minority voting power. Look at the last election: Democratic House candidates got more votes in the country as a whole than did Republican candidates, but the Republicans held the House. That was in no small part due to those majority minority districts. If those racial minorities were spread out into other districts, they would actually have more power by not having their votes be wasted as overkill.
No surprise, it was that way throughout the South for many decades – regardless of whether the black neighborhoods were over the town line or inside it, whites found ways to dilute their votes and deny them representation; at-large council seats were a favorite tactic, as there was no town or county where blacks formed a majority. But, that really is another topic entirely. Metro governments, no less than small-town governments, can have single-member-district representation.
Still, it’s an idea . . .
Like curbing sprawl is a bad thing. Sprawl is good, it means people have a place to live. Cities have been sprawling ever since the second house was built next to the first. It seems sprawl is everything built after you have your house.
I say let people vote on whether to be an annexed. It may or may not be a stupid choice, but it will be their choice.