Derek Ruez
(Peace and Justice Studies Association Conference, Oct. 5-8)
Scales of Democracy:
Consolidation and the Common Good in Louisville, Kentucky
In
November 2000, residents of Louisville and Jefferson County in Kentucky voted
to consolidate the governments of the city of Louisville and Jefferson County
into one countywide multi-purpose government. The referendum was hotly
contested, but in the end, the pro-consolidation forces backed by the major daily
newspaper and a large section of the business community won the day. After a
failed referendum in 1956 to expand the boundaries of the city of Louisville,
two failed referendums in the early 1980's on city-county consolidation, and
seemingly constant study, pressure, and preparation for consolidation, the city
of Louisville was at long last “united” with its suburbs in the county (Savitch
and Vogel 1996; 2000b). The
consolidation effectively dissolved the existing governments of the city of
Louisville and Jefferson County, and
created a county-wide government to take its place. Smaller suburban
municipalities were allowed to continue to operate as they always had.
Before I
go any further, I think it would be useful to give a bit of background on the
city of Louisville. The largest city in Kentucky, the newly merged metro
Louisville as a population of 700,000
with 250,000 of that being in the former city of Louisville and the remaining 450,000
in the county. As in many cities, suburbanization and deindustrialization have
taken their tolls, particularly in the central city. Throughout the second half
of the 20th century, populations have been spreading out from the
central city into the suburbs in the county and further out into the
surrounding counties, although more recently the population of the central city
seems to have stabilized. One unique feature of the situation in Louisville
though, was the existence of a city-county compact dating from the mid 1980s.
This agreement between the city and county governments to jointly operate and
fund many agencies also made provisions for tax sharing that allowed the city
to gain access to revenue from the development in the suburbs. This compact
allowed the city of Louisville to regain some of what was lost with
suburbanization and put it in a better position to deal with the effects of
deindustrialization.
I believe
that examining the consolidation of the governments of Louisville and Jefferson
County, known locally as Merger, allows us to explore some of the implications
that refiguring the scale of politics can have for those concerned about issues
of justice and democracy. Particularly in the context of moving towards a
regional framework for governance in metropolitan regions, the case of
Louisville can, I think, help us understand a lot. Many hoped that by rescaling
government in the city, the region would then be able to speak with one voice
in the often worldwide competition to attract capital. Also, many arguments for
regionalism call on notions of equity and aim at reducing disparities between
the suburbs and the central city, although this aspect was conspicuously absent
from the pro-merger campaign,. Merger in Louisville can, I believe, be shown to
be an attempt on the part of the economic and political elite to consolidate
their control over the area and to alter the political scene in a way, that
they probably really do believe will bring the city forward, while also, and
not inconsequentially, furthering their own interests at the expense of already
poor and marginalized people living in the central city. And all of this was
accomplished through appealing to the common good of the region.
Savitch
and Vogel, two political scientists working in Louisville , argue that the
consolidation represents a significant shift in power relations within the
community. In their aptly titled article, “Suburbs Without a City”, Savitch and
Vogel point to some significant shifts as a result of consolidation. Most
obviously perhaps, the boundaries of the city have been extended. This change
in boundaries has very real implications for politics in Louisville. African
American residents, who made up nearly one-third of the population of the
former city of Louisville, are only 15% of the population in Metro Louisville.
The former city council was consistently 1/3 minority while the new metro
council is just a bit more than 20%. Additionally, suburban residents now make
up nearly two-thirds of the population and, as the city of Louisville no longer
exists, there is, according to Savitch and Vogel, a lack of a separate outlet for the institutional
expression of the interests of the central city (Savitch and Vogel 2004:783).
They also
argue that the merger has changed the rules of politics in Louisville. The
consolidation plan set in place a strong mayor-weak council system. The new metro
mayor is in a stronger position to build public-private partnerships and create
economic development policies with less interference from the council (784).
Additionally, merger has led to huge changes in the political composition of city
politics. Before consolidation it was nearly impossible for a Republican to be
elected in the city of Louisville and not even all that common in county
government. Republicans are now a strong and vocal minority on the council.
Additionally, suburban representatives make up a majority on the council.
Savitch and Vogel argue that these shifts place priority on both suburban
development and gentrification display and an increased bias towards what they
call “system maintenance policies” over “access to middle class lifestyles”
(784).
In order to
investigate the political changes wrought by the merger, I interviewed
activists from the Coalition for a People’s Agenda a group, composed of many of
grassroots community organizations and activists, which came together shortly after the passage of the merger
referendum in Louisville aiming to build what they called “A People’s Agenda”
around the motto that “Another Community is Possible.” They framed this as an
attempt to come together as a community concerned with issues of economic and
social justice in the face of the upcoming city-county consolidation. They
drafted a document centered on demands for civil rights, community development,
and democratic governance. This agenda was presented to the incoming Metro Council
and has been used to organize around a variety of issues, such as civilian
review of the police force and a living wage ordinance.[1]
According
to several people that I interviewed, the Coalition for a People’s Agenda came
together in order to present a unified front for the civil rights and social
justice movement in Louisville in the face of the impending consolidation and
all the changes that they expected would come with it. They also felt that the
new council people coming in from the suburbs would need to be educated about
the unique needs and problems of the former city of Louisville.
In order
to understand more clearly the ways in which the re-scaling of the city was
embedded in struggles over justice in Louisville, I asked my interviewees to
give me their thoughts regarding the motivations behind the merger. They pointed
to several different reasons for the push to merge Louisville and Jefferson
County. All of them suggested that the political and economic elite were
interested in consolidating their power in some way. It was suggested by several
of the interviewees that having the metro government would be easier on
businesses than the separate city and county governments. One of the most
prominent arguments of the pro-merger campaign was the need to reduce
conflicting and confusing regulations on businesses. One of the people I spoke
with though reminded me that planning and design was already a joint agency through
the city-county compact and thus businesses already only had one set of regulations
to deal with. She pointed out though that what merger did accomplish was making
getting around these regulations easier. She suggested that pre-merger, for
planning regulations to be ignored for particular projects required approval
from some high levels in both city and county government. That is, the mayor of
the former city of Louisville might have wanted “to give a pass on certain
regulations to a developer while the county executive might decide to enforce
the regulations” (Jill).
Several
people seemed to see merger as just one
aspect of a long tradition of putting the needs of business before the needs of
people in Louisville. He commented that it was common for ordinary people to be
hurt in order to make additional land available to potential investors.
Additionally, he pointed towards the current gentrification happening in
several neighborhoods just east of downtown, and said “There has to be a
powerful authority to steal people’s shit, and that is what merger means to me”
(Evan).
There were,
of course, many other factors mentioned as being part of the motivation to
merge. One of those was the chance to get the popular former mayor, Jerry
Abramson, who was term-limited out of office back at the head of the newly
created metro government. This was important for many of the political and
economic elite (not to mention for Abramson himself). As one person put it,
“merger was about business having one person that they could jerk around, and
they got exactly the person that they wanted to jerk around” (Jill).
It seemed
that in all of the interviews, the participants said in some way or another that
merger represented a broader attempt on the part of the elite to take the
community in a certain direction, although it was not clear to everyone where
that direction is, or if, indeed, perhaps they’ve have since gotten lost. One
interviewee pointed towards the failure of the economic and political elite to
even achieve their own goals. She pointed to the “build it, and they will come”
attitude toward the construction of a new downtown arena without any
professional sports team to be a tenant. This for her was an example of the
confused agenda of the political and economic elite.
Others
seemed to see the political and economic elite as a relatively cohesive,
skillful, and competent group in pursuit of economic growth. One pointed
towards Louisville’s history as an industrial city and the transition that
Louisville has been going through as the economy changes. He suggested that
Louisville has had some success in competing to attract new investment. The
merger was one component of their strategy. One said, “When a company is
looking to relocate, they do look to see how much help they can get from the
city… and the city is now [with merger] positioned to do that more and more”
(Evan).
During the
referendum campaign, many merger proponents made much of the need for the
community to speak with one voice in pursuing its agenda. I asked the
participants whether they thought that the merger had in fact been able to help
the community speak with one voice and whether this was even a good thing. A majority
of those interviewees said that they did think that merger had enabled the
community to speak with one voice more often. There was some disagreement as to
whether this was a good thing and what was even implied in talk of speaking
with one voice.
One
person, while originally opposed to merger and still critical of some of its
effects, saw merger as helping the community to learn to work together and to
actually think of itself as one community in at least a limited way. He
indicated that before merger, there was a divide between city and county
residents, but that now as the governments have merged people have begun to
think of themselves as living in one community.
Others felt that merger had indeed allowed the community
to speak with one voice in a certain way, although he was critical of this. He
felt that the already powerful in the community had further consolidated their control
as the governments were consolidated and are now able to speak and drown out
opposing voices.
Some
disagreed that the community is more unified. One in particular argued that
there are some in the community who are concerned with important issues like
healthcare, housing, crime, and education. Others, she said, “want a sky box in
a new arena” (Jill). She argued that some people try to spin their individual
interests as what is in the best interest of the whole community. Additionally,
she pointed towards the continued existence of the small cities in the suburbs
as evidence that community is not really united. She said:
“We’re still split. The small cities still exist, and
they aren’t completely part of the merged government. It didn’t cost someone
living in Jeffersontown (a wealthy suburb of Louisville) anything to vote for
the merger… they didn’t lose anything, but they get to have a little say in
what happens at 4th and Oak, even if they’re not completely sure
where that is” (Jill).
Several
interviewees pointed towards a diminished ability for ordinary people to exert
power and influence the political system since merger. One person said that the
worst thing about the merger is that “ordinary people seem no longer to have a
voice that can be heard” (Evan). Another lamented that there are a lot of
people “who figure nobody is going to listen to them anyway, so why bother
saying anything” (Jill).).
In
connection with that, most of those interviewed have noticed a large shift in
city politics post merger. On said, “you
can see over and over again, in the bills that they introduce and the things
they pass do not affect poor and middle class people; they affect upper and
upper middle class people” (Evan). Another person points towards a shift of
power towards suburban interests which do not understand the city’s needs.
“There is a disconnect from [urban issues], and I don’t think it has to do with
party affiliation. It just so happens that the Republicans come from the
suburbs, and they don’t understand and, in four years, haven’t tried to
understand what really goes on in the city” (Jill).
In
concluding my interviews, I spoke with people about how merger has in fact
changed the organizing that they do. All see merger as having affected their
work in significant ways, some saw these changes as entirely negative, while fewer
did identify some positive outcomes of merger.
Some have noticed certain
positive changes with merger. He saw the merger as pushing people to begin
organizing more in the county and attempt to build support for progressive
policies and ideas in the suburbs. While expressing frustration with the size
of the metro council, he did see advantages to only having to lobby one
government, instead of two.
Most saw
merger as compounding the difficulty of their work, although not really changing
the basic character of it. According to one, “Merger, as a citizen and an
employee, has been a complete and total failure” Several suggested that merger
did not really represent a drastic change in course for the city, but rather represented
just another attempt on the part of the already powerful to consolidate their
control. One person said, “Even though they said it was a new day, it’s really
the same government. You have the same old folks doing the same old thing.”
In general,
they seemed to feel that the government of the old city of Louisville was easier
to work with because it was more receptive to progressive sorts of policies,
largely because the council in the old city of Louisville was elected by a much
higher percentage of working class people and people of color. The new
government, with its constituencies in the suburbs has less incentive promote
progressive policies.
I can’t
help but feel that the consolidation in Louisville led to a lot of the problems
that one might fear from such restructuring: minority dilution and the
increasing suburban dominance strike me as the two most important. Along with
these problems, it seems that there were few of the benefits that one might
hope for. While the county-wide merged government would be in an excellent
position to attempt to reduce disparities between city and suburban residents,
its political leaders, who are more conservative and, above all, more
suburban-centered than in the former city, right now at least, seem to lack any
incentive or desire to do that.
The scale
at which decisions are made is important. What group of people makes what
decisions in whose name is also important. At first glance, the Louisville case
might seem to lend credence to the view that the region is not a good scale for
decision-making if one is interested in justice and democratic participation. However,
I think that this would be an unfortunate conclusion to draw.
I think,
and the research I have done indicates that the consolidation has not been good
for Louisville. By not being good, I mean that it has made progressive policies
more difficult to achieve and represents a shift in power relations away from
already marginalized people in the central city toward the already affluent
suburbs. It seems to me, though, that the problems in Louisville are related to
the specific way in which the consolidation occurred. I don’t think there is
reason to conclude that the region might not be an appropriate scale for many
decisions.
Iris
Marian Young offers a compelling case for why, in the interests of justice and
democracy, some decisions ought to be made at a regional scale. She argues that
people living together in a metropolitan region are inter-connected in many
important ways, and thus have obligations to each other in terms of justice. As
many regionalists argue, all parts of a metropolitan region are interdependent,
and many problems facing a region cannot be solved by individual actors in the
area but rather require action throughout the region.
Young
introduces two important concepts for use when thinking about regional
governance issues: differentiated solidarity and relational autonomy. For
Young, differentiated solidarity entails “a commitment to combat exclusion and
foster individual freedom” that also attempts to “affirm the freedom of
association that may entail residential clustering and civic differentiation”
(Young 2000:197). Relational autonomy can, perhaps, be explained as the idea
that communities should be autonomous so long as their actions do not affect
other communities. When their actions would have effects on others, compromises
must be negotiated.
First local autonomy means a
presumption of agency and non-interference. Local units should be small enough
to allow for meaningful citizen participation in discussion and decisions, and
local government should have non-trivial decisions to make about how the
environment, public life, and opportunities of its citizens are shaped….
Secondly, in so far as the activities and decisions of a locale may adversely
affect others or generate conflict, or implicate their interdependent
relationships, other locals have a legitimate right to make claims on
autonomous locales, negotiate the terms of their relationships, and mutually
adjust their effects (231-232).
Applying the concepts of differentiated solidarity and
relational autonomy to the issues of regional governance as Young does provides
some fruitful outcomes. They point towards a situation where some form of
regional governance can be achieved while still promoting local autonomy and
democratic control.
What the
case in Louisville does give us, I believe is an imperative to examine how we
go about creating regional institutions. It can also remind us of the
importance of examining appeals to the “common good” closely. While the region,
in the context of the U.S., does seem a useful scale at which many sorts of
common good could be pursued, moves towards regional decision-making must be
made carefully. We need be sure that regional governance mechanisms and
institutions are designed to protect some measure of local autonomy. Most
importantly, we need to carefully ensure that appeals to the common good of the
region do not veil attempts to restructure government in the interest of already
powerful.
Bibliography
Boudreau, Julie-Anne. 2000. The MegaCity Saga. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Brenner, Neil. 2002. “Decoding the Newest 'Metropolitan Regionalism' in the USA: A
Critical Overview.” Cities 19:1:3-21.
Brenner, Neil. 2004. New State Spaces. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik. 2002. “Cities and the Geographies of 'Actually Existing Neoliberalism'.” Pp. 2-32 in Spaces of Neoliberalism, edited by N. Brenner and N. Theodore. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Butler, Judith; Laclau, Ernesto; Zizek, Slavoj. 2000. Contingency, Hegemony, Universality.
New York: Verso.
Carr, Jered B. and Feiock, Richard C. 2000. “Private Incentives and Academic
Entrepreneurship: The Promotion of City-County
Consolidation.” Public
Administration
Quarterly 24:2:223-245.
Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Eckstein, Harry. 1975.
“Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” Pp. 79-136 in Strategies
of Inquiry, edited by F. Greenstein and N. Polsby. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley
Publishing Company.
Foucault, Michel. 1997. “What is Critique?” Pp. 191-211 in The Politics of Truth, edited by S.
Lotinger and L. Hochroth. New York: Semiotext(e).
Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Persius Books.
Frisken, Francis and Norris, Donald. “Regionalism Reconsidered.” Journal of Urban Affairs
23:5:467-478.
Gerth, Joseph. 2003. “Council OKs police review board.” Courier-Journal. February 14: 1b.
Gerth, Joseph. 2004. “Fairness rules win bipartisan 19-6 vote.” Courier-Journal. December 10:
1a.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006. Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Harvey, David. 2004. “The Right to the City.” Pp. 236-239 in The Emancipatory City?,
edited by L. Lees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Keil, Roger. 2000. "Governance Restructuring in Los Angeles and Toronto: Amalgamation or
Secession?" International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 24:4:758-781.
Ostram, Vincent; Tiebout, Charles M.; Warren, Robert. 1961. “The Organization of
Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” The American Political Science Review
55:4:831-842.
Savitch, H.V. and Vogel, Ron K. 1996. “Louisville: Compacts and Antagonistic Cooperation.”
Pp. 130-158 in Regional Politics:
America in a Post-City Age. Urban Affairs
Annual Review 45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Savitch, H.V. and Vogel,
Ron K. 2000a. “Paths to New Regionalism.” State and Local
Government Review 32:3:158-68.
Savitch, H.V. and Vogel, Ron K. 2000b. “Metropolitan Consolidation versus Metropolitan
Governance in Louisville.” State and Local Government Review 32:3:198-212.
Savitch, H.V. and Vogel, Ron K. 2004. “Suburbs without a City: Power and City-County
Consolidation.” Urban Affairs Review 39:6:758-790
Shafer, Sheldon S. 2000. “Firms are Big Givers to Merger Advocates.” Courier-Journal.
October 7:1a.
Soja, Edward W. 2000. Postmetropolis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Stake, Robert E. 2000. "Case Studies" Pp. 435-454 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd
edition, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stephens, G. Ross and Wikstrom, Nelson. 2000. Metropolitan Government and Governance.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 1997. “Neither Global nor Local: ‘Glocalization’ and the Politics of Scale.”
Pp. 137-166 in Spaces of Globalization, edited by K. Cox. New York: Guilford Press.
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Zambroski, James. 2000. “Awards for Officers in Slaying Spark Furor.” Courier-Journal.
March 2:1a.
[1] This information and much more is available at the Coalition for a People's Agenda website, http://www.peoplesagenda.org.