Metropolitan Fragmentation and Fiscal Competition PBAF/URBDP 560 Metropolitan Fragmentation and Fiscal Competition

Recap and Today Participation Assessment Recap Today Yet on more sprawl ISTEA and its successors (or their lack) Transportation policy and equity Today Metropolitan Fragmentation

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/11oct_sprawl.htm Recap Sprawl

Sprawl vs. Growth Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles

Natural Color Image of Sprawl http://www.satimagingcorp.com/gallery/quickbird-urban-sprawl.html

Bogotá, Colombia July 2009 8.5 million metro area, City of Bogota 7.3; view of the city from Cerre de Monserrate, 3152 above sea level By 2030, 2 out of every three people will live in an urban environment globally.

Former “Pirate” Neighborhood Bogotá, Colombia July 2009 In Usme, at the south of the metro area. At the rear of the photo are places that were quarried for sand or building clay. And construction at the top of a hill is illegal.

More “pirate” development Usme. Note the housing going on the tops of these hills. This is outside Bogotá’s Urban Growth Boundary and sprawling into its main urban watershed.

More in the “Pirate” Neighborhood Also in Usme. Pirate does not mean shanty…

Another sprawl definition Sprawl is about the rate of urban expansion occurring at a rate greater than population growth. Without regard for regional environmental needs.

Transportation Equity

Metropolitan Fragmentation and Fiscal Competition

Number Local Governments 2007 Type of Local Government In WA In US County 39 3,033 Municipal 281 19,492 School District 296 13,051 Special District* 1,229 37,381 Total 1,845 89,476 *Special Districts in WA include: 170 Natural Resources, 387 fire protection, 41 Housing and Community Development Source: 2007 Census of Governments http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/cog/2007/wa.pdf Accessed 1/20/2009

Metropolitan Fragmentation & Fiscal Competition Percent Local Taxes of General Revenues from Own Sources 19,400 cities; 89,000 local govs in federal system. Local diversity in policy, tax burden, services Changing revenue mix-- decreasing tax dependence Diversity leads to policy experimentation? Fragmentation-> Disparity? Inefficiency? Efficiency? Policy efforts to deal with efficiency and equity issues Political (& practical) feasibility questionable 1967 1992 2007 Local 76% 64% 63% School District 83%* 81%* Counties 77% 60% Cities 61% As of 2007, about 89000 local governments. http://www.census.gov/govs/cog/GovOrgTab03ss.html About how to finance the city? Area? What’s the problem with fragmentation? *97% of school tax revenue is local property tax

Local Reactions Fiscal zoning Competition for tax base Lead to Economic stratification Land use planning that pushes growth outward And, therefore SPRAWL Local reactions—what is the result at a regional level? Leads to stratification, land use planning that encourages outward growth, and thus sprawling development patterns (Orlfield).

Solutions: Efficiency or Equity in Fragmented Metro Region? Market Banfield/Tiebout, Public Choice Privatization Consolidation Annexation, Elastic cities Two-Tier Regional Government Regional Tax-base Sharing State redistributive solutions Intermunicipal cooperation Feasability of these?? In WA? Tiebout depends on exit rather than voice. Not everyone can exit. Works for those with wealth and mobility. Market solutions tend to reflect inequality among municipalities in the metropolitan region. (Privatize what—garbage? Police?) supposed to increase voice. State redist solutions (institutional aid) does not seem to benefit central cities./revenue sharing (formula) Regional gov—loss of voice. All of these deal with inequality in different ways. Fair provision of public services. Reduction of wasteful competition, reinvestment in disadv. Communities. BUT loss of local control ALL DIFFER IN THEIR… Collective social choice making Choices of services Participation in process Production efficiency Market model = many jurisdictions Income redistribution/Fiscal equity Representation/voice

For discussion Orfield is concerned with reducing metropolitan fiscal disparities in order to reduce the burden on the hardest- pressed jurisdictions and increase services for the most underserved populations.   Can policies that promote regional equity also help in mitigating sprawl? How?   Could revenue sharing promote/accelerate gentrification? Is it possible that our desire to characterize the various metropolitan forms (Hanlon, et al.) contributes to metropolitan fragmentation and disparity?  How might policies designed to promote fiscal equity (institutional aid programs, state-aid programs, and tax-base sharing) work with the New Metropolitan Reality Model?  Can fiscal zoning policies be used to create more equitable regions? How?