1 / 13

Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

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?. Fragmentation: Definition.

wren
Télécharger la présentation

Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metropolitan Reform

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Fragmentation in General: Median Metro Area • Total Number of Governments: 104 • Counties: 2 • Cities 24 • Towns, townships 16 • School Districts 19 • Special Districts 43

  5. Fragmentation in Clark County: # of Governments • County 1 • Cities 2 • Villages 9 • Townships 10 • School Districts 8 (inc. JVS) • Special Districts 9 • Total # of Governments= 39

  6. 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

  7. Reformers (e.g., David Rusk) • Confusion in the responsibility for services • Reductions in political scrutiny and control (undemocratic) • Political Unresponsiveness • Duplication of Effort • Inequities in revenue and policy • Inefficiencies, therefore most costly

  8. Decentralists (e.g., Charles Tiebout) • Suburban residents tend to be more concerned with incremental changes • Efficiency is not the only value, e.g., access and lifestyle issues • Public Choice School of Thought • Centralization frustrates democracy • Less costly due to smaller

  9. Annexation Strategies • Most prevalent prior to WWI, but became harder due to stringent state laws requiring simultaneous majorities • Largely a Southern and Southwestern phenomenon (extraterritorial jurisdiction, and spoke/finger annexation—Houston)

  10. City-County Consolidation • Only 4 have occurred involving more than 250,000 • Again, a Southern phenomenon: Baton Rouge—3 service zones: urban, rural, industrial • Reasons 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

  11. Strengthening Urban County Government • Problems with traditional county government—Row officers • Need for professional management • Use of more home rule charters: Broward County, FL (Ft. Lauderdale)

  12. 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

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

More Related