Opinion of Splitting up Cities

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Much of US history since the 60s has been white flight away from cities and the resultant lack of wealth and funds cities were left with. Republican were also able to use the issue of middle class dollars helping the inner city in a way that helped them win elections.
A way to neutralize this issue would be to split up cities into smaller cities and let them run themselves. Many areas are hurt by having different politics from the greater city. For example, Statten Island can forge closer ties with New Jersey like they want to. Roxbury, a poor neighborhood, could get into new buisnesses that the rest of Boston wouldn't let them get into. They could become an abortion mecca, for instance. The conservative areas would be able to happily remove their governments while the inner city can finally have well financed schools and benefits without republican intransigence.
 It works out for all sides.

[ElectionsGuy]

If they want to and allow the citizens of that city/town to vote on it (and a majority say yes), then sure. But otherwise no, and I don't think much would happen anyway.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

For example, Statten Island can forge closer ties with New Jersey like they want to.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.  I think this is an issue best left to the cities themselves, but a city can't be absorbed by another state without the approval of Congress.

[Lief 🗽]

Roxbury, a poor neighborhood, could get into new buisnesses that the rest of Boston wouldn't let them get into. They could become an abortion mecca, for instance.

wtf

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Rubbish.

The absolute opposite needs to be done. City lines should be organized on the basis of where people live and work. And in the US case if this means a Chicago or New York City that stretches over three states, so be it.

[AggregateDemand]

It's a local matter, but it would be a bad idea. Cities declined because they were too small to keep residents in.

[7,052,770]

No, the opposite should happen.  Big cities and their suburbs should be under the same municipal governments.

[Sol]

Rubbish.

The absolute opposition needs to be done. City lines should be organized on the basis of where people live and work. And in the US case if this means a Chicago or New York City that stretches over three states, so be it.

Exactly. It'd also probably contain suburban growth since it makes it essentially futile to try and escape the problems of urban areas.

I wonder if I could use DRA to model this...

[Sol]

Here:



True city boundaries in WI.

[H. Ross Peron]

Rubbish.

The absolute opposition needs to be done. City lines should be organized on the basis of where people live and work. And in the US case if this means a Chicago or New York City that stretches over three states, so be it.

Exactly. It'd also probably contain suburban growth since it makes it essentially futile to try and escape the problems of urban areas.

I wonder if I could use DRA to model this...

Amen to this. This would also avert loss of tax bases for cities due to white flight.

[Simfan34]

Cities ought to form Canadian-style metropolitan governments. And Averroes is, as usual, right- Urban Growth Boundaries (and restrictive greenbelts) are very good ideas.

[Torie]

I am with Al on this one, in that suburbs should largely be done away with, except for certain very local functions. But for the fiscal purposes, and to mitigate all the negative externalities generated by a patchwork of municipalities, e pluribus unum is job one. Will it ever happen? Of course not!

So anyway, I go in the opposite direction of meiosis, rather than mitosis on this one. I am also in general hostile to state powers. I and the Sun King are on the same page here. Not only should all roads lead to Rome, but also most of the power too. We are one nation.

[Sol]

Cities ought to form Canadian-style metropolitan governments. And Averroes is, as usual, right- Urban Growth Boundaries (and restrictive greenbelts) are very good ideas.

IMO, the Canadian governments are too small.

[traininthedistance]

Much of US history since the 60s has been white flight away from cities and the resultant lack of wealth and funds cities were left with. Republican were also able to use the issue of middle class dollars helping the inner city in a way that helped them win elections.
A way to neutralize this issue would be to split up cities into smaller cities and let them run themselves. Many areas are hurt by having different politics from the greater city. For example, Statten Island can forge closer ties with New Jersey like they want to. Roxbury, a poor neighborhood, could get into new buisnesses that the rest of Boston wouldn't let them get into. They could become an abortion mecca, for instance. The conservative areas would be able to happily remove their governments while the inner city can finally have well financed schools and benefits without republican intransigence.
 It works out for all sides.

What?  No.  No no no no no.  No!  N - O spells no.  NO.  Abso-f[inks]ing-lutely not.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way... the various pro-consolidation folks that have already chimed in have said 95% of what needs to be said, but a couple nitpicks:

Here:



True city boundaries in WI.

Those boundaries are too expansive; you probably want to go with urbanized area rather than metro area since there are genuinely rural parts on the outskirts of most of those counties.  It's not as easy to model in DRA, though.

Actually, for most metropolitan areas, it would probably have the immediate effect of encouraging more growth in the most far-flung suburbs and exurbs unless it was combined with some kind of Urban Growth Boundaries (which are a good idea anyway).

I'm not so sure that's the case, since "beggar-thy-neighbor" local competition for infrastructure and tax bases are a major driver of sprawl.  Obviously UGBs are a good idea and should be implemented everywhere, but I'm not so sure that consolidation would really make things worse than status quo in their absence.

I am with Al on this one, in that suburbs should largely be done away with, except for certain very local functions. But for the fiscal purposes, and to mitigate all the negative externalities generated by a patchwork of municipalities, e pluribus unum is job one. Will it ever happen? Of course not!

So anyway, I go in the opposite direction of meiosis, rather than mitosis on this one. I am also in general hostile to state powers. I and the Sun King are on the same page here. Not only should all roads lead to Rome, but also most of the power too. We are one nation.

It is refreshing to see someone else- especially someone with your color avatar- espouse this position.  It is the correct one, of course: state-level government is actually quite illogical for many things, and most of their duties should be either kicked upstairs to the Feds, or downstairs to the metro area.  Similarly most municipal lines in most developed areas are poor reflections of the region, due to being super-balkanized, exclave-pocked, or any number of other sins, and consolidated metro-area governance would be far fairer and more efficient than the status quo.  Obviously there should be some sub-metro structure for local input on the neighborhood level, but it would be better if they were more advisory and less gated- think NYC community boards (even that setup has its problems, but they are relatively mild), not the Grosse Pointes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One of the worst ideas ever seriously proposed on Atlas. Congratulations.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On the state/municipal thing, it is very notable, isn't it, that historically the states have been so very, very keen to crush assertive municipal governments or even the possibility of them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, coming from a country where the average municipality has less than 2000 inhabitants, you can imagine that I'm rather sympathetic to the idea of consolidation.

[Sol]

Yeah, coming from a country where the average municipality has less than 2000 inhabitants, you can imagine that I'm rather sympathetic to the idea of consolidation.

Yeah, French Communes, IIRC, are probably the dumbest municipal units in the developed world.

[morgieb]

If anything, cities should encompass the whole metropolitan area, ala Australia and Canada.

[politicallefty]

No. If anything, metropolitan areas need to be consolidated far more (such as the SF Bay Area being united under one jurisdiction a la NYC).

[muon2]

No. If anything, metropolitan areas need to be consolidated far more (such as the SF Bay Area being united under one jurisdiction a la NYC).

I agree that a large number of small suburbs and one large central city doesn't serve regional interests for the public when the only other entity is the state. Yet there are some problems for subregions in large metros if they are totally governed by the central city. Some of this occurs in Cook county where the suburbs with a little under half the population can end up losing their voice to Chicago in county decisions.

In some cases it seems like the public might be well served by a few large entities that span the metro region. NE IL transit is governed by a body appointed from each of the large metro counties plus Chicago. I also liked the balance between Minneapolis and St Paul (or Hennepin and Ramsey counties) in the Twin Cities when I lived there a few decades ago. In the Bay Area perhaps there should be three entities built around SF, Oakland, and San Jose and they provide input into regional decisions?

[Hatman 🍁]

I live in an amalgamated city, and it was one of the worst possible solutions to the problems it was intended to fix. Because of it, we will likely never have a progressive mayor in my life time.

I believe in strong consolidated regional governments, but the complete balkanization of small, weaker municipal governments. This would be the best of both worlds. Individual neighbourhoods would have a small degree of autonomy, but people wouldn't be able to flee the problems of their region by taking their tax dollars with them.

[Sol]

I live in an amalgamated city, and it was one of the worst possible solutions to the problems it was intended to fix. Because of it, we will likely never have a progressive mayor in my life time.

The Toronto metro is quite conservative- thus a logical city of Toronto shouldn't elect a progressive except in very particular circumstances.