On my way to the National League of Cities Summit in LA I listened to a podcast from, the Weeds. Sarah Kliff discussed the “democracy vouchers” program in Seattle, whereby eligible residents receive a $100 voucher that they may donate to any of the candidates running for one of seven city council positions – effectively creating a new donor class. Seattle voters approved an annual $3 million property tax in November, 2015 for a ten-year period. The city estimates this cost the average taxpayer $11.50 per year. Kliff mentioned that Austin is also considering such a program and other cities may as well.
Campaign finance reform has been an issue for many years and since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the landscape has changed. It appears that some local governments are taking up the challenge although we certainly cannot declare a trend yet. This year, New York City voters passed a campaign finance reform measure to lower the maximum amount that individuals may contribute to a candidate in an effort to curb the outsized impact of large donors. They also approved term limits for community board members (four, two-year terms) and chose to allow Mayor De Blasio to create a “civic engagement commission”.
While this commission sounds good on paper, New York City already has 59 community boards that are charged with having input into landuse planning within their respective districts, input into the city’s annual budget, and other matters having to do with services and service delivery. Community Planning Councils are a long-standing feature of New York City government and were first established in New York in 1951, revised numerous times since then. According to the civic engagement ballot initiative, the main objective is to get language services for elections, partner with local community organizations and participate in the budget process. Seems redundant (dare I say a waste of taxpayer money?), but when you look under the hood, the Mayor has the right to appoint a majority to the commission whereas Community Board appointments are made by City Council members. Hmmm.
Speaking of community engagement, I had an interesting conversation with a council member at NLC from Greenbelt,Maryland, one of three communities built by FDR’s government under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act in 1935. Of note, one of the screening criteria was to “demonstrate willingness to participate in community organizations”. The government received 5,700 applications for the first 880 residences. Numerous co-ops were also created to provide labor in order to lure businesses to this relatively remote rural community at that time. A participatory legacy has endured and the community has a culture of civic engagement to this day.
At the Finance and Intergovernmental Relations session at NLC, the topic of state pre-emption of powers of local government came up. There are many examples. Local governments that have chosen to keep fracking out of their community (we express no “pro” or “con” on fracking) have been over-ruled by the governors of several states. (There is an interesting case that ultimately went in favor of local government in Pennsylvania.) Certainly, governors in several states have put caps on local property taxes. Control by states over their local governments extend to many other areas – notably the right to determine pension benefits and reforms without legislative approval (think Chicago).
I was surprised to hear how intense the intergovernmental battle is in Texas, between the governor and the state’s local governments. Local representatives complained that officials in the state don’t even want to talk with them. As reported in Governing Magazine, Governor Abbott has sought to prune back the controls of local governments, even home-rule government within the state – everything from banning plastic bags to fracking. According to the article, Bennett Sandlin, head of the Texas Municipal League commented that ranchers don’t like plastic bags blowing across their property since they interfere with cattle feeding. Tourist business on San Padre Island don’t like the bags washing up and littering the beach.
As the article describes, the governor was peeved that he couldn’t chop down a pecan tree on his Austin property due to a local rule. The city has a regulation that destroying old growth trees had to be replaced with new plantings, which on its face seems an infringement. However, let’s assume everyone decides to follow the governor’s lead and it becomes fashionable to remove all the trees from your property. It’s your right, right? What then happens when the next storm comes along and there aren’t any trees to offer protection?
In fact, one argument for the extent of devastation that Harvey caused in the Harris County-Houston metro area was due to the paving over of so many potential drainage areas – leaving fewer places for excess water to be absorbed or run off. Harris County municipal utility districts have been notorious for unbridled development with little overall planning or zoning. (Yes, there are many golf courses, a permissible project in the flood plain, but that wasn’t enough.) You end up with a “tragedy of the commons”.
At issue is finding a balance between individual liberties and the welfare of one’s community. We highly recommend “American Nations” by Colin Woodard to readers who wish to go further (an easy read). The book is an account of the history and development of different political cultures across the geography of the U.S. He looks through the lens of cultures that emphasize individual liberty over community health and vice versa. If the book leaves you with a depressing outlook of our hyper-partisanship today, his sequel, titled “American Character: A History of the Epic Struggle between Individual Liberty and the Common Good” is also worth a read. Here, here..
