Chapter 12 – Metropolitics: Governing America’s Urban Regions

Metropolitan regions

the most important units of social and economic life — yet they lack an effective, unified system of government

Metros

areas where multiple jurisdictions are economically, socially, and physically interdependent

Metros are composed of

cities, counties, suburbs, and special districts

Fragmented authority

dozens or even hundreds of separate local governments operating within a single metro area

No constitutional basis

for regional government in the U.S.

Fundamental mismatch between

• Political geography (boundaries, jurisdictions)

• Social/economic geography (where people live, work, commute, and shop).

Metros create 

inefficiency, duplication, and “free-riding” behavior (people benefiting from metro amenities without paying metro taxes)

Characteristics of Metropolitan Life

1. Population Size & Density

2. Diversity

3. Regional Interdependence

4. Fragmented Authority

Population Size & Density

concentrated population centers

Diversity

economic, racial, cultural, and social heterogeneity

Regional Interdependence

shared problems like traffic, housing, and pollution

Fragmented Authority

overlapping city, county, and special district governments

There is no regional governing body

authority is scattered among hundreds of overlapping units

The “Texas Triangle”

Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio area contains ~75% of Texas’s population

The “Texas Triangle” Illusrates

extreme urban concentration and suburban expansion in modern U.S. metros

Interdependence without coordination

residents share infrastructure and labor markets but lack shared governance

Interdependence without coordination results in

• Redundancy

• Inequality

• Accountability gaps

Redundancy

multiple agencies performing same function

Inequality

uneven tax bases and services

Accountability gaps

no single authority responsible for regional problems

The Free-Rider Problem

Residents of unincorporated areas enjoy metro benefits—jobs, amenities, roads—but don’t contribute to the tax base that funds them

Suburb

outlying, low-density residential area — may be incorporated or unincorporated

Drivers of suburban growth

• Postwar economic boom and middle-class expansion.

• Automobile dependence and new highways.

• Racial and class segregation (“white flight”).

Suburbs historically 

white, middle-class, Republican

Suburbs today

more diverse, politically competitive

Urban cores

more Democratic

Suburbs have

mixed partisan leanings

Three broad governance approaches

• Regionalism

• Localism

• Functional Consolidation

Regionalism

Reform Perspective

Regionalism goal

centralize and consolidate metro governments and services

Regionalism - Arguments for consolidation

• Efficiency: “reducing costs with economies of scale.”

• Elimination of redundancy and overlapping jurisdictions.

• Accountability: fewer governments = clearer lines of responsibility.

• Justice: prevents suburban “free-riding.”

Regionalism criticisms 

• Large bureaucracies may reduce service quality.

• Residents fear loss of community identity and local control

Localism

Fragmentation Perspective

Localism prefers

independent local governments that serve distinct communities

Localism - Arguments for fragmentation

• Protects community identity and local control.

• Decentralized power = greater access to government and participation.

• Residents can “shop” for preferred mix of services and taxes (Tiebout model).

Functional Consolidation

Middle-ground

Functional consolidation merges

specific services (police, transit, waste) but not whole governments

Functional consolidation example

Councils of Governments (COGs), joint service agreements

Methods of Coordination & Consolidation

• City-County Merger

• Municipal Annexation

• Councils of Governments (COGs)

• Interjurisdictional Agreements

City-County Merger

Combines city and county governments into one regional authority (e.g., Nashville–Davidson County)

Municipal Annexation

City extends boundaries into unincorporated areas; historically unilateral in Texas

Councils of Governments (COGs)

Facilitate coordination among local gov’ts; no binding authority

Interjurisdictional Agreements

Contracts between local gov’ts to share functions, services, or taxes

Texas Annexation Law - 1912

Home Rule cities gained broad annexation authority

Texas Annexation Law - 1963 Municipal Annexation Act

imposed limits to promote orderly growth

Texas Annexation Law - 1996

Houston’s controversial annexation of Kingwood

Texas Annexation Law - 2019

HB 347 required voter approval for any city annexation

The Tiebout Model

Governments are producers of public services; citizens are consumers who vote with their feet

The Tiebout Model - People & Businesses

relocate to jurisdictions offering the preferred service/tax balance

The Tiebout Model - Fragmentation

marketplace for public goods

The Tiebout Model - Assumptions

high mobility, perfect information, and many choices (often unrealistic)

Traditional Urban Growth Coalition

Led by economic elites — developers, bankers, landowners

Shared pro-growth consensus

maximize land values and economic returns

Traditional Urban Growth Coalition Today

development capital often national, but land use authority remains local

Emerging Anti-Development Forces

• Middle/upper-middle class residents

• Lower-income residents

• Homeowners

Anti-Development Middle/upper-middle class residents

oppose traffic, noise, and “ugly buildings.”

Anti-Development Lower-income residents

fear displacement and rising costs

Anti-Development Homeowners

organize NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) resistance

NIMBYism reflects

a clash between community development and individual neighborhood protection

Sprawl

Outward, low-density expansion

Leapfrog development

beyond current city limits

Sprawl consequences

• Fragmented landscapes, increased infrastructure costs.

• Urban “flight”

Urban “flight”

loss of tax base and consumer spending in older neighborhoods

Gentrification

Neighborhood changes that occur with an influx of higher-income residents and higher-rent tenants

Gentrification Pros 

restores property values, reduces crime, boosts local tax revenues

Gentrification Cons

displacement of poorer residents, cultural erosion

Gentrification Formerly

redlined neighborhoods at particular risk

Smart Growth

Seeks walkable, mixed-use, compact communities

Smart Growth Combines 

residential, retail, and business space

Smart Growth Tools 

• Zoning laws

• Subdivision controls

• Environmental and utility regulations

• Building permits

Zoning

Land use regulation designating permitted uses of land; in theory, separates incompatible uses but often preserves community ‘character

Zoning Frequently Favors

existing residents and limits new development

NIMBY zoning

can block affordable housing or change

Eminent Domain

government’s power to take private property for public use with “just compensation.”

Eminent Domain Traditionally

for infrastructure or utilities

Eminent Domain Expanded

in Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

economic development qualifies as public use

LULU (Locally Unwanted Land Use)

airports, waste plants, or roads—necessary but unpopular

Eminent Domain Raises tension

between individual property rights and community needs