Custodians of Place: Governing the Growth and Development of Cities

1 Introduction: Contingent Trusteeship and the Local Governance of Growth

1 Chapter 1 Introduction: Contingent Trusteeship and the Local Governance of Growth Although most students of American political institutions and policy focus on the activities of the state and federal levels, it is often the politics of everyday life that is most important to citizens . Whether neighborhoods are safe, whether it is possible to get around in a predictable and efficient way, whether water is drinkable , whether utilities are available at reasonable prices, whether schools prepare one’s children for competing in the world of work or in the entrance battles to top universities, whether local and regional conditions ensure that an investment in homeownership is protected or enhanced—these are matters of key concern to citizens , and it is local governments that they hold responsible for these things. Much of what goes on at the street level, and much of the rhythm of everyday life, is managed, provided, or delivered by local governments. In other words, local governments are important because they deal with matters that are important and physically proximate to residents—their local public services, the social composition of their communities, and notably, the physical development of their neighborhoods. By physical development, we are referring to the kinds of structures that are built and the kinds of activities and people such development invites. After all, how well off a person is or how vulnerable one is to the unpleasant and hazardous aspects of life has a geographical or territorial expression. A lovely home might have its market value greatly diminished if the neighboring area deteriorates. Or a community’s amenities and its ability to satisfy the social and family needs of its inhabitants—what is sometimes called “use value”—might be reduced by some change in the community, such as traffic congestion resulting from the construction of a nearby office complex, even if that change increases the “exchange value” (or selling price) of the home. Indeed, some 2 Introduction scholars view local politics as essentially a matter of territorial or spatial competition for advantages and disadvantages.1 To political scientists, local governments are also important because they constitute a critical institutional arena, involving tens of thousands of public entities, including cities, towns, villages, and boroughs (all of which are typically classified as municipalities), as well as counties or parishes, a bevy of regional entities and councils of governments, and a bewildering array of special-purpose districts providing educational services, water supply, flood control, soil conservation, libraries, public utilities, and other functions. In other words, the panoply of local services—recreation, public safety, cultural services, economic development, development regulation, code enforcement—are provided in a highly variegated and decentralized institutional and social environment. Not surprisingly, then, local governance occupies a prominent place in the philosophy of institutional design. It is commonly said of local governments—almost so often as to become a cliché—that they are the layer of government “closest to the people.” In this sense, local governments provide proximity and access to citizens and thereby are often thought to enhance popular sovereignty and democracy, reflecting citizens’ views more closely than larger-scale governments. The positive side of this nearness, argue students of local government from Thomas Jefferson to Charles Tiebout and beyond, is that the people can more closely monitor and control their government officials, and officials will identify closely with their constituents, given the commonality of culture and preferences about government likely to prevail in small-scale communities .2 It is said that by comparison to the nation-state, the city “is more accessible to its residents, more closely tied to their interests, and more likely to promote the sense of community which is usually associated with citizenship.”3 Local democracy, it is argued, is more vibrant, participatory, responsive, and productive than more distant levels of government. The negative side of such localism has been noted, too—by everyone from the authors of the Federalist Papers to many contemporary environmentalists and civil rights activists.4 The critics charge that small-scale democracy may yield small-minded policymaking . Caving into constituents’ petty self-interest and obsessively craving local fiscal advantage, it is argued, local officials tend to emphasize local objectives, regardless of the effect such conduct has on more general public goals—whether involving the regional Contingent Trusteeship and Local Governance of Growth 3 economy, transportation, protection from environmental degradation and natural hazards, housing needs, or the pursuit of liberty or equality. This notion...