Places America - DEMOGRAPHIA5 Let People Do What They Want Lone Mountain Compact absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and

1

PlacesPlacesPlacesWorthWorthWorthCaringCaringCaringAbout:About:About:LocalLocalLocalDemocracyDemocracyDemocracyInInInAmericaAmericaAmerica

City Hall, Rome, NY

ByByByWendell Cox, PrincipalWendell Cox, PrincipalWendell Cox, PrincipalWendell Cox ConsultancyWendell Cox ConsultancyWendell Cox Consultancy

Presentation to thePresentation to thePresentation to theNational Association of National Association of National Association of

Towns & TownshipsTowns & TownshipsTowns & TownshipsWashingtonWashingtonWashington

10 September 200410 September 200410 September 2004

Porto, Portugal

2

Outline

1. Urban Sprawl & Suburbanization

2. Local Democracy

3. Rusk “City Elasticity Theory”

4. Concluding Thoughts

Suburbs

Urban Sprawl & SuburbanizationUrban Sprawl & SuburbanizationUrban Sprawl & Suburbanization

Ville de Paris

Suburbs

Suburbs

Suburbs

3

a trashy and preposterous human environment

with no future-James Howard Kunstler (The Geography of Nowhere)

“places not worth caring about”-James Howard Kunstler (The Geography of Nowhere)

4

GDP/Capita 1992 (PPP)

76% 77%69%

87%

100%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

US Germany France UK Japan

2002$

GDP/Capita: 2002 (PPP)

74% 73% 72%78%

100%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

US Germany France UK Japan

2002$

5

Let People Do What They Want

Lone Mountain Compact

absent a material threat to other individuals or the community,

people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.

Happiest People in the World

Pew Foundation Study

6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Canada UnitedStates

WesternEurope

Asia Oceania

Canada from 1951, US from 1950

Others from 1965

Share of Urban Growth in SuburbsMETROPOLITAN AREAS OVER 1,000,000

Europe of Tourists & Planners

Paris: Avenue de l’opéra

7

Paris from a Rental Car

Paris suburbs

Suburban Hanover Suburban AntwerpSuburban Copenhagen

European Planner’s View of USA?

8

97.4%2.6%

Urbanized Land in the United States

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

US Paris Hong Kong Tokyo

Higher Density = Longer Commutes

Work TripTravel Time

2,3782,077

1,7441,505

3,362

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Extreme Serious Moderate Marginal None

Air Pollution & Density: US

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,000

US W. Europe Asia

Vehicle Hours/Square Mile

Higher Density: More Congestion

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

Planning Versus Reality

RATE PER DECADE SINCE 1980

Western Europe

Canada

Asia &USA

Public TransportMarket Share

9

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

New York Urbanized Area DensityPROVISIONAL ESTIMATE BY SECTOR: 1800-2000

Manhattan

Urbanized Area(Total)

Balance NYC

Outside NYC

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

1800

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

New York Urbanized Area PopulatonPROVISIONAL ESTIMATE BY SECTOR: 1800-2000

Manhattan

BalanceNew York City

OutsideNew York

City

10

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

New York Urbanized AreaESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY: 1800-2000

PopulationPer Square Mile

Average Household SizeUNITED STATES: 1950-2000

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

11

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

New York Urbanized Area DensityPOPULATION & HOUSEHOLDS: 1950-2000

Population

Households

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

US Sprawl Stopped in 1960s

Population/Square Mile

New Development Due to Household Growth

Population

Households

12

-1,093

-3,126

-587411

-979

-3,500-3,000-2,500-2,000-1,500-1,000

-5000

5001,000

Draining the Cities?

BusingEducation

TaxesCrime

ServicesCorruption

“Landlocked”Central Cities

Population (000)

1950s 1970s1960s 1970s 1980s

1990s

GovernmentGovernmentGovernmentClose to theClose to theClose to thePeoplePeoplePeople

Thomas County Courthouse, Colby, KS

13

Does Canada Seek a US Merger?

Economies of Scale: US + China?

14

Local Democracy in Metropolitan Paris1,300 GENERAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

The Importance of Local Democracy

Paraphrasing Lincoln

… government of the people by the people and for the people

… is government that is closest to the people

15

State & LocalCosts &

GovernmentSize

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

ND SD NE W KS MT VT ID MN IA ME M AR WI IL IN O

KNM NH CO DE O

R PA W KY MS

OH W MI

AK UT AL TX NY GA SC CT NJ TN MA CA AZ NC RI LA NV FL VA MD HI

Population per Local Government Unit STATES: 2000

Population perGovernment Unit

Less Local Democracy

16

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 3 Quintile 5

State & Local Governments by SizeSTATES BY QUINTILES: 2000

Population perGovernment Unit


$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500


State & Local Taxation Per CapitaSTATES BY GOVERNMENT SIZE QUINTILES: 2000


17

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400


“Government Fragmentation”GOVERNMENTS PER MILLION: STATE QUINTILES

GovernmentsPer 1,000,000

Population: 2000

050

100150200250300350400450500

National Average Pacific Midwest

“Government Fragmentation”MID-WEST LITTLE BOX” V. PACIFIC “BIG BOX”

GovernmentsPer 1,000,000

Population: 2000

“Big Box”CA, OR, WA

“Little Box”IL, IN, MI,OH, WI

18

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000


State & Local Taxes per Capita MID-WEST LITTLE BOX” V. PACIFIC “BIG BOX”

2000

“Big Box”CA, OR, WA


0

5

10

15

20

25


State & Local Government Employees MID-WEST LITTLE BOX” V. PACIFIC “BIG BOX”

Per 1,000Population

2000

“Big Box”CA, OR, WA “Little Box”

IL, IN, MI,OH, WI

19

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200


Government Employee Payroll/Capita MID-WEST LITTLE BOX” V. PACIFIC “BIG BOX”

Wages & SalariesPer Capita

2000“Big Box”CA, OR, WA


MunicipalCosts:

Smaller isLower

20

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Largest Larger Medium Smaller Smallest

Municipal Expenditures per Capita BY MUNICIPALITY SIZE: UNITED STATES: 2000

Average274,000

Average71,000

Average38,000

Average22,000

Average9,000

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Core (-1939) Ring 1 (1940-59) Ring 2 (1960-79) Ring 3 (1980-99)

Municipal Expenditures per Capita BY SUBURBAN RING: UNITED STATES: 2000

Age: Median House AgeDensity: Population per Square Mile

Density9,067

Density5,466

Density2,861

Density2,118

21

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

City of Chicago Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs

City v. Suburbs Jurisdiction SizeCHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA: 1997

AveragePopulation

PerMunicipality

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

City of Chicago Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs

City v. Suburbs Wages & SalariesCHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA: 1997

MunicipalWages & Salaries

Per Capita

Benefits?Paid Time Off?

22

Consolidation:False

Economies

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Halifax Victoria

Larger & Smaller GovernmentVICTORIA & HALIFAX: POPULATION

23

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Halifax Victoria

Larger & Smaller GovernmentVICTORIA & HALIFAX: NUMBER OF CITIES

0102030405060708090

100

Halifax Victoria

Larger & Smaller GovernmentVICTORIA & HALIFAX: ELECTED OFFICIALS

24

$0.00$0.50$1.00$1.50$2.00$2.50$3.00$3.50$4.00$4.50$5.00

Halifax Victoria

Larger & Smaller GovernmentVICTORIA & HALIFAX: ELECTED OFFICIAL COSTS

Per Capita

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

LowestGrowth

Low Growth MediumGrowth

High Growth HighestGrowth

Job Growth Quintiles: 1980-2002EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY QUINTILE

25

05

101520253035404550

Lowest Growth Low Growth Medium Growth High Growth Highest Growth

Job Growth Quintiles: 1980-2002GENERAL GOVERNMENT PER 1,000,000 POPULATION

2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

LowestGrowth




010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000

LowestGrowth



Job Growth Quintiles: 1980-2002AVERAGE GENERAL GOVERNMENT POPULATION

Population perJurisdiction: 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

LowestGrowth




26

05

101520253035404550

Lowest Growth Low Growth Medium Growth High Growth Highest Growth

Job Growth Quintiles: 1980-2002AVERAGE ANNUAL SNOWFALL

Inches

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

LowestGrowth




0.85

0.88

0.91

0.94

0.97

1.00

Lowest Growth Low Growth MediumGrowth


Job Growth Quintiles: 1980-2002AVERAGE 1980 WAGES

Compared toLowest Growth

Quintiles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

LowestGrowth




27

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

LowestGrowth



Job Growth Quintiles: 1980-2002STATE & LOCAL TAXATION PER CAPITA: 1980

StateOf Core City

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

LowestGrowth




0

25

50

75

100

125

Lowest Growth Low Growth MediumGrowth


Job Growth Quintiles: 1980-2002POLITICAL & ECONOMIC ENTRENCHMENT

Years SinceCore CityReached 100,000

Population

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

LowestGrowth




28

Distinctive Competences (Subsidiarity)

Paraphrasing Lincoln

… government of the people by the people and for the people

… is government that is closest to the people

Competitiveness, Cautions & Fads

3 Competitiveness Lists

5 of 10 areas with greatest job growth (1980-2002) not listed, including #1 & #2

Rise of the Creative Class

1999 List: Portland #30

2004 List: Portland #6

29

Sterling County Courthouse, Sterling City, TX

David Rusk’sDavid Rusk’sDavid Rusk’sCity ElasticityCity ElasticityCity ElasticityTheoryTheoryTheory

Sun Belt

Sun Belt

Frost Belt

Frost Belt

30

020406080

100120140160180

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Frost BeltNE & Midwest

Sun BeltSouth & West

National Population Trend: 1950-2003FROST BELT AND SUN BELT

In Millions

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

1950 1990

Nashville:1950 Boundaries

NashvilleWith Consolidation

Nashville & LouisvilleELASTICITY THEORY PHANTOMS

Louisvlle:1950 Boundaries

31

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

VBA

NC SJ

CO

SM

SA

AU

RSE

AR

AH

AR

LN

VL SFO

MA

CH

ALX

GW

CH

POR

LV IPS

AU

SJV

LA

BQ

AN

AD

EN SDC

OL

TUL

KC

PHX

RSD

STP

MP

SO

KC

FTW

TUC

TAM SA CC

TOL

DA

LPG

HB

OS

SAC

HO

UST

AO

AK

CH

IW

DC

ME

MM

I LLV

LC

I N LA PHI

NYC

BA

LEL

PLB FR

EST

LA

TL DET

CLV BU

FM

IA NO

NW

K

City Elasticity Theory: Poverty RateLARGEST CITIES: LOUISVILLE BEFORE MERGER

PovertyRate: 2000

Louisville:50th of 66

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

VBA

NC SJ

CO

SM

SA

AU

RSE

AR

AH

AR

LN

VL SFO

MA

CH

ALX

GW

CH

POR

LV IPS

AU

SJV

LLV

LA

BQ

AN

AD

EN SDC

OL

TUL

KC

PHX

RSD

STP

MP

SO

KC

FTW

TUC

TAM SA CC

TOL

DA

LPG

HB

OS

SAC

HO

UST

AO

AK

CH

IW

DC

ME

MM

I L CI N LA PH

IN

YCB

AL

ELP

LB FRE

STL

ATL DET

CLV BU

FM

IA NO

NW

KCity Elasticity Theory: Poverty Rate

LARGEST CITIES: LOUISVILLE AFTER MERGER

PovertyRate: 2000

Louisville:21st of 66

32

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

Pre-Merger Post-Merger

Households in Poverty: 2000PRE-MERGER AND POST MERGER LOUISVILLE

Jefferson CountyOutside City of

Louisville

City ofLouisville

PostMergerCity of

Louisville

(JeffersonCounty)

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000



City ofLouisville

FormerCity of

Louisville

Jefferson CountyOutside City of

Louisville

Jefferson CountyFormerly

Outside City ofLouisville

33

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000



PostMergerCity of

Louisville

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

ZeroElasticity

LowElasticity

MediumElasticity

HighElasticity

HigherElasticity

Poverty Rate by City ElasticityURBANIZED AREAS: 2000

34

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

ZeroElasticity

LowElasticity

MediumElasticity

HighElasticity

HigherElasticity

Median Income by City ElasticityURBANIZED AREAS: 2000

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

HighestGrowth

High Growth MiddleGrowth

Low Growth LowestGrowth

Residential Segregation & Population GrowthMETROPOLITAN AREAS OVER 1,000,000: 2000

Average

HighestSegregation

LowestSegregation

African-AmericanDissimilarity Index

By 1980-2000Population Growth

Quintile (5th)

35

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%HighestGrowth

High Growth

MediumGrowth

Low Growth

LowestGrowth

Change in Residential SegregationMETROPOLITAN AREAS OVER 1,000,000: 2000

1980-2000Population Growth QuintilesChange in Segregation Index

Genuine Consolidation Justifications?

New York: Fear of Losing #1 to Chicago

Indianapolis: Retaining Political Control

Toronto: Settling a Political ScoreLouisville: Reclaim #1 State Rank from

Lexington

36

PlacesPlacesPlacesWorthWorthWorthCaringCaringCaringAbout:About:About:LocalLocalLocalDemocracyDemocracyDemocracyInInInAmericaAmericaAmerica

The Universal Dream

Honjo (Tokyo suburb)

37

Why Local Democracy is Superior• People have more control• Less anonimity

People know their elected officialsNot other people’s money

• Not dependent upon a fickle, limited attention span press

• Special interests have less control• Less bureaucracy

Conclusions

1. “Urban Sprawl” is urban growth

2. Local democracy is more efficient and effective.

3. Large cities may be too large

Places America - DEMOGRAPHIA5 Let People Do What They Want Lone Mountain Compact absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and

Documents