Metropolitan Fragmentation and Metro Reform Little Boxes Central Argument : A Fundamental Challenge to Governing Urban Areas is the Fragmentation of Local Government Authority.

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 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

Fragmentation in General: Median Metro Area Total Number of Governments: 104 –Counties:2 –Cities24 –Towns, townships16 –School Districts19 –Special Districts43

Fragmentation in Clark County: # of Governments County1 Cities2 Villages8 Townships10 School Districts 9 ( inc. CTC and CCESC ) Special Districts 12 ( 2 Port Authorities; 2 Health Districts; Soil and Water Conservation; Transportation Coordinating Committee; 2 Conservancy Districts; Library District; 2 Parks Districts; Mental Health) –Total # of Governments= 42

Clark County Fragmentation in Comparison to All Ohio Counties Total Number of Taxing Districts in Clark County = 42, e.g., of 4 of our taxing districts below: –SPRINGFIELD TWP/SPRNFLD CSD –SPRINGFIELD CORP/NE LSD –SPRNGFLD CORP/CLARK-SHAWNEE LSD –SPRINGFIELD CORP/SPRNGFLD CSD Ave. number of Taxing Districts in Ohio’s 88 Counties = 50; range=18 (Vinton)-116 (Hamilton)

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

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

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)

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

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

Two-Tier/Federative Reform Basic notion is that the county will work on system-maintenance services, e.g., water and sewer, transportation, libraries, while municipals will provide lifestyle services such as parks and rec, housing, etc.. Miami-Dade; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Portland

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— how?

David Rusk Ohio’s “Interlocking Problems”—Sprawl, Race, and Concentrated Poverty. Contribute to fragmentation and multi-centered metro areas Concentrated Poverty creates Push-Pull Factors biased toward middle-class families moving to suburban areas (Push—high crime rates, falling property values, higher tax rates in Central Cities; and Pull—opposite factors in suburbs)

Rusk (Continued) Ohio’s “Little Box” system of local government— close to 2,400 individual units ranks Ohio in top 5. –E.g., between , Ohio urbanized pop grew 121%, but the amount of urbanized land expanded 305%! (Remember that sprawl is low-density development on the urban fringe). –The more the metro regions are broken into “little boxes” the more they tend to sprawl.

Rusk Continued So, need regional solutions with the help of the state legislature—includes: –Regional land use and transportation planning— state law would need to mandate this. –Inclusionary zoning –Regional tax-base sharing—e.g., win-win annexation

John Kasich Local government cooperation and consolidation –Schools are key options –What about Springfield and Clark County—next class session.