D e m o c r a c yi s s u e s o f

E L E C T R O N I C J O U R N A L S O F T H E U . S . I N F O R M A T I O N A G E N C Y

A P R I L 1 9 9 9

V O L U M E 4 N U M B E R 1

D E M O C R A T I C

L O C A L

G O V E R N M E N T

2

F r o m t h e E d i t o r s

Democratic Local Government

THE AMERIC AN SYSTEM offederalism allows for strong local governmentthat is distinct and separate from that practicedat both the federal and state levels. The resultis a complicated web of intergovernmental rela-tions, with certain powers authorized at eachlevel, but there are also limitations. Powers atthe local level are granted by the Constitutionbut how they are structured is not spelled out.The structure of local government can take anumber of different forms, involving electedmayors, councils and appointed city managers.The purpose of this journal is to present anoverview of democratic local government in theUnited States.

Professor Ellis Katz of the Center for theStudy of Federalism at Temple University exam-ines how the ideas of self-government and fed-eralism affect local government. The mayor ofAbilene, Texas, Gary D. McCaleb, discusseshow communities need to work together to solveproblems that often transcend borders.

David R. Berman, professor of political scienceat Arizona State University, explains how localand state governments use their powers to raiserevenue. The outgoing mayor of Kansas City,Missouri, Emanuel Cleaver II, and two formermayors, Gene Roberts of Chattanooga, Tennes-se, and Art Agnos of San Francisco, California,hold a dialogue on how U.S. cities market themselves for economic development. BruceAdams, founder and president of A GreaterWashington, an alliance of business and com-munity leaders, writes on how local governmenthas evolved over the past two centuries andsuggests ways for communities to follow in thenew millennium. In profiling a city—Atlanta,Georgia—where diversity plays a major role,contributing editor David Pitts looks at howgovernment and citizens continue the struggleto make it a city that works for everyone.

3

The Colorado State House of Representatives

in session.

4

issues of Democracy

C o n t e n t s

Apr i l 1999

6

L O C A L S E L F - G O V E R N M E N T I N T H E U N I T E D S TAT E S

Ellis Katz of the Center for the Study of Federalism at Temple University, examines how

federalism affects local government.

12

S O L U T I O N - S H A P E D G O V E R N M E N T

Mayor Gary McCaleb of Abilene,Texas, tells how communities need to work

together to solve problems.

17

T H E P O W E R S O F L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T I N

T H E U N I T E D S TAT E S

David Berman of Arizona State University, explains the revenue-raising powers

of local government.

22

T H E N E W FA C E O F AT L A N TA

Contributing editor David Pitts looks at the efforts to make Atlanta a city that

works for everyone.

31

M A R K E T I N G C I T I E S F O R D E V E L O P M E N T

One outgoing and two former U.S. mayors discuss promoting a city to make it

attractive as a haven for business and tourism.

5

36

L E S S O N S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

I N T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y

Citizen activist Bruce Adams shows the evolvement of local government and offers

suggestions for communities to follow.

41

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Recent books and articles on local government and federalism.

44

I N T E R N E T S I T E S

Sites in cyberspace that feature local government and federalism themes.

The opinions expressed on other Internet sites listed here do not necessarily represent

the views of the U.S. government.

PUBL I SHER Rosemary Crockett

ED ITOR John Treacy

MANAGING EDITOR Stuart Gorin

ASSOC IATE ED ITOR Wayne Hall

INTERNET/TEXT EDITOR Deborah M.S. Brown

CONTR IBUT ING EDITORS Estelle Baird

Tim Bennett

Susan Cleary

Mona Esquetini

Charla Hatton

REFERENCE SPEC IAL I STS Carol Norton

Barbara Sanders

ART DIRECTOR Diane Woolverton

GRAPH ICS ASS I STANT Sylvia Scott

ED ITOR IAL BOARD Howard Cincotta

Rosemary Crockett

John Davis Hamill

USIA’s electronic journals, published and transmitted worldwide at three-week intervals, examine major issues facing the United States and the International Community. The journals—EconomicPerspectives, Global Issues, Issues of Democracy, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, and U.S. Society & Values—provide analysis, commentary, and background information in their thematic areas. Arabic, French,Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish versions will appear approximately two weeks after the English. The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.Government. Articles may be reproduced and translated outside the United States unless there are copyright restrictions cited somewhere on the articles. • Current or back issues of the journalscan be found on the U.S. Information Service (USIS) Home Page on the World Wide Web at “http://www.usia.gov/journals/journals.htm.”They are available in several electronic formats to facilitateviewing on-line, transferring, downloading, and printing. Comments are welcome at your local USIS post or at the editorial offices:Editor, Issues of Democracy (I/TDHR), U.S. Information Agency,

301 4th Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20547, United States of America.

E L E C T R O N I C J O U R N A L S O F T H E U . S . I N F O R M A T I O N A G E N C Y

I S S U E S O F D E M O C R A C Y

B U R E A U O F I N F O R M A T I O N • U . S . I N F O R M A T I O N A G E N C Y • e j d e m o s @ u s i a . g o v

A P R I L 1 9 9 9

THE CONSTITUTION of the UnitedStates creates a national government with limit-ed powers. While these powers are very broad,and have expanded enormously since theConstitution was written in 1789, it is stillassumed that the national government has only those powers delegated to it by theConstitution; all other powers remain with thestates. There is no mention of local governmentin the U.S. Constitution, and it is widely under-stood that local government is a matter of state,not federal concern.

This is not to say that the federal govern-ment has no influence over local government.The federal Constitution, for example, prohibitsstate and local governments from infringingupon the civil rights and liberties of their resi-dents; it precludes them from enacting lawsthat discriminate against citizens of otherstates; and it prohibits tax and regulatory poli-cies that handicap businesses in other states. In

6

D e m o c r a t i c L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t

Local Self-Government in the United States

by E l l i s Ka tz

Local governments in the United States

exist within the complicated web of

intergovernmental relations created by

American federalism that both limits what

local governments can do and, at the

same time, empowers them to undertake

activities and programs that they other-

wise could not do. In this study of local

self-government in the United States, Ellis

Katz, professor emeritus of political science

and fellow of the Center for the Study

of Federalism at Temple University in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, examines how

the ideas of self-government and federal-

ism affect the organization and functioning

of local government.

Ellis Katz

addition, cities and other units of local govern-ment participate in the federal government’sgrant-in-aid system, by which the federal gov-ernment provides over $225 billion in grants tostate and local governments annually for a widevariety of purposes ranging from communitydevelopment to education to child nutrition.Nevertheless, local government is a matter forthe states, not the federal government.

According to conventional legal theory,local governments are created by state govern-ment. Their institutional structures are defined,their responsibilities are delineated and theirpowers of taxation all are derived from stategovernment. In fact, it is the state governmentthat gives local governments “the breath oflife,” without which, they could not even exist.Whatever legal theory might say, the politicalreality is that America’s cities and towns enjoya remarkable degree of autonomy and indepen-dence.

A Pass ion for PopularSovere ignty

Writing 167 years ago, the French journalistAlexis de Tocqueville observed that the UnitedStates’ pattern of local government reflectedAmerica’s passion for popular sovereignty. Bythis, he meant that individuals and familiesjoined together to form local communities,which, in turn, federated to form states, whichultimately led to the creation of the nationalgovernment.

Forgiving some exaggeration, Tocqueville’sobservation does capture the important fact thatlocal units of government are not created bysome higher authority, such as the state ornational government, but are created by thepeople themselves, and represent popular andenduring expressions of how we think aboutlocal government in the United States.

A Var iety of Communit ies

Americans live in a wide variety of local com-munities. Overall, there are almost 36,000cities and towns in the United States today.Almost 45 million Americans live in large citieswith a population of over 250,000, another 40million live in medium-sized cities of between50,000 and 250,000, and yet another 40 mil-lion live in small cities of between 10,000 and50,000. Despite being “a nation of cities,” 123million Americans—almost 50 percent of thetotal population—live in cities of less than10,000 residents, in unincorporated towns andtownships, or in rural areas.

The size of the population of a local com-munity affects both the kinds of services thatcan be provided and the nature of civic life. In

7

the United States, many very small local com-munities cannot provide for their own policeand fire services, schools and libraries, orsewage and trash disposal systems. These smallcommunities often join with other nearby com-munities to share these services, or they con-tract with state or county government to providethem.

At the same time, the sheer size of verylarge cities has an impact upon the structure ofgovernment and the quality of civic life. Largecities, for example, tend to have strong mayoralsystems of government because, it is believed,only a single powerful individual can provideleadership and mobilize resources in a largeand diverse community. Many medium-sizedand smaller communities provide for nonparti-san, professionally trained city managers tooversee the day-to-day operations of govern-ment. Small towns, on the other hand, oftenhave commission-type forms of government inwhich both legislative and executive authorityare vested in an elected commission. In small-er communities, it is not unusual for almostevery resident to have a relative or friend whopersonally knows some important politicalleader. Thus, personal access to political deci-sion-makers is much easier in small communi-ties than in large cities.

Moving f rom Cit ies to Suburbs

One of the great demographic trends that hasaffected where and how Americans live hasbeen the move from cities to suburbs. Thismove has led to the creation of large metropoli-tan areas that may include one or more sub-

stantial-sized cities and many contiguoussmaller independent communities.

This pattern of urban-suburban life posesdifficult problems of governance. For example,the city of Philadelphia has approximately 1.5million residents, but the Philadelphia metro-politan area (narrowly defined to include onlyPhiladelphia and the four surrounding countiesin the state of Pennsylvania) has almost 4 mil-lion inhabitants, organized politically into threecities, 92 boroughs (small cities, usually withless than 10,000 residents) and 145 townships.

Typically, an individual might be a residentof, pay taxes to, and elect the officials of a cityor town, an independent school district, severalspecial districts, a county, and the state andnational governments. It is no wonder that thereare almost 500,000 elected public officials inthe United States today.

In many countries of the world, this prolif-eration of governments would be intolerable,and cities would simply expand to annex theirsurrounding territories, or some sort of all-encompassing metropolitan government wouldbe created. At a minimum, the small, suburbangovernments would be forced to consolidateinto larger units.

In the United States, however, citizenshave resisted these efforts, and have been quiteingenious in finding ways to coordinate publicservices while maintaining the integrity of theirlocal communities. In general, state constitu-tions and state laws provide for incorporatedmunicipalities and unincorporated towns andtownships as general-purpose local govern-ments, counties as administrative subdivisionsof the state, school districts and over 33,000other special districts that serve limited pur-

8

poses which provide and coordinate servicesacross jurisdictional lines without creating larg-er governmental units.

Subdiv i s ions of Loca lGovernment

Every state except Connecticut and RhodeIsland is divided into counties. Counties aresubdivisions of the state itself. They tend tocover large geographic territories and, becausecounties vary so much in size, state law typical-ly divides them into categories based on popu-lation. Thus, there may be slight variations inthe powers of county government that vary withpopulation. Counties may include urban, sub-urban or rural populations (or even combina-tions of all three) and, not surprisingly, theirfunctions may vary with the nature of theirdemography. Their principal functions are judi-cial administration, public safety and the orga-nization of elections, although in recent yearsthey have taken on a variety of new functions,such as solid waste disposal, public health,libraries, technical and community collegesand environmental protection.

Townships were originally subdivisions ofcounty government and were primarily respon-sible for road maintenance. Today, townshipscarry out a full range of governmental functions,such as police and fire protection, trash collec-tion, zoning and land use, recreation and eco-nomic development. State law usually catego-rizes them according to population size or den-sity. In many states, they are indistinguishablefrom small cities, except that they lack munici-pal charters.

Cities are municipal corporations thatoperate under charters from the state. Until thelast half of the 18th century, the tendency wasfor the state to grant each municipality a char-ter unique to its needs. During the second halfof the last century, as urbanization increased,most states provided for general municipalcharters (sometimes with some optional fea-tures) so that upon reaching a certain popula-tion (typically 10,000) a local community couldapply to the state for a charter and become amunicipal corporation.

Typically, local communities of differentpopulations receive different types of charters,so that the charters of large cities tend to estab-lish a different form of government than is char-acteristic of smaller cities, and large cities tendto have more taxing and regulatory authoritythan do small cities. But, in all cases, the pow-ers granted to a municipal corporation are to benarrowly interpreted. According to Judge JohnDillon’s famous 1868 opinion:

It is a general and undisputed propositionthat a municipal corporation possesses and canexercise the following powers, and no others:first, those granted in express words; second,those necessarily or fairly implied in or incidentto the powers expressly granted; third, thoseessential to the accomplishment of the declaredobjects and purposes of the corporation—notsimply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair,reasonable, substantial doubt concerning theexistence of a power is resolved by the courtsagainst a corporation, and the power is denied.

“Dillon’s Rule,” as it became known, whiletechnically correct, flies in the face of the his-torical and political reality observed byTocqueville only 37 years earlier.

9

10

Home Rule

To counter Dillon’s restrictive view of localauthority, states adopted a new way to charterlocal governments, one more way in keepingwith the American tradition of popular sover-eignty.

For example, beginning in the state ofMissouri in 1875, the states began to changetheir constitutions to provide for home rule forlocal communities. Pennsylvania’s home ruleconstitutional provision is typical, and providesthat “Municipalities shall have the right andpower to frame home rule charters.” Operatingunder such charters, “a municipality may exer-cise any power or perform any function notdenied by this Constitution, by its home rulecharter, or by the General Assembly.”Pennsylvania, by legislation, also extends thehome rule option to counties and townships.

Today, many states have some sort of con-stitutional provision for home rule. Under mosthome rule provisions, the residents of a localcommunity write and adopt their own charterthat serves as a kind of constitution for the city.While home rule charters go far in restoring thehistorical independence and autonomy of localcommunities, citizens cannot adopt chartersthat offend the state constitution or state laws.Furthermore, state courts are called upon tointerpret home rule charters and often have fall-en back on Dillon’s Rule to take a narrow viewof local authority.

School and Spec ia l Dis t r ic ts

In addition to counties, townships and munici-palities, states also create school districts andother special districts. School districts are agood example of the tension between local and

state forces. Historically, state law simplyempowered (and sometimes required) localcommunities to create public schools. Theschools were organized, regulated and financedby the local community. As public educationbecame more complicated, and as the statefinanced a greater share of the cost of educa-tion, the state’s role in such important mattersas curriculum and school personnel expanded.Today there is continuing tension between localand state forces for control of the schools with-in a community.

Special districts, whether concerned withsolid waste disposal, mass transportation, fireprotection, or other matters, have developed fortwo reasons. First, because state constitutionslimit local indebtedness, special districts aresometimes created to finance large capital pro-jects through the issuance of public bonds.Second, because some problems cross theboundaries of several local governments, a spe-cial district might be created to address a par-ticular inter-jurisdictional problem. Whatevertheir precise structure and authority, these spe-cial districts have proven useful in fending offthe consolidation of small local units of govern-ment into larger regional governments.

Accountable Loca l Se l f -Government

In thinking about local government, perhapsthe key question is: to whom are local govern-ments accountable?

In some countries, local governments arereally local administrations, and local officialsare accountable to some higher authority. Insuch countries, revenue collection tends to becentralized, central authorities often audit local

11

expenditures, and sometimes there is evensome kind of appointed governor who overseesthe activities of local officials.

In the United States, however, local offi-cials are primarily accountable to their localcitizens. Local communities raise the bulk oftheir own revenues, the centralized audit func-tion is extremely limited, and state departmentsof community affairs exist merely to provideservices to local governments, not to overseetheir operations.

Local governments are not entirelyautonomous and independent, however. Theyexist within the overall framework of a state’sconstitution and laws, much as the Americanstates, themselves, exist within the frameworkof the Constitution of the United States. Indeed,a few states—Connecticut, New Hampshire andmany of the New England and Middle Atlanticstates, for example—operate almost as if theywere federations of their local communities.However, some other states—Idaho, NewMexico and many of the Western and Southernstates—are substantially more centralized andcarefully control the operations of their localcommunities.

However we conceptualize the local-staterelationship, we must recognize that there willalways be a tension between the advocates oflocal self-government and the advocates of cen-tralization. The very fact that this tension exists,and that local communities and states bargainwith each other about the relative powers ofeach, is evidence that Tocqueville’s 19th centu-ry observation about how much we value ourlocal institutions is still very much a part of theAmerican system.

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

12

D e m o c r a t i c L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t

T W O W O R D S frequently used todescribe change in the way we live are “global”and “technology.” As the issues change, gov-ernment must also change in the way itresponds. What must not change is the clearunderstanding that democratic local govern-ment is no less important in affecting the out-come of such change.

A New Era

The most discussed issue at a recent meeting of locally elected officials in Washington, D.C.was “electronic commerce,” often known as “e-commerce.” In 1998, American consumersmade billions of dollars in purchases. Most ofthese electronic commerce transactions weredone by e-mail. The total expenditures via thisunique purchasing method are expected to con-tinue to grow in 1999 and beyond.

Because these purchases were made with-out patronizing local businesses, no sales taxwas collected for local or state government, and

Solution-Shaped Government

by Dr. Gar y D. McCa leb

From a global perspective, the way we

live and work permeates practically every

dimension of our lives and consequently

portends potential impact at every level

of government. In this introspective look

at how global technology affects our

lives, Dr. Gary D. McCaleb, the mayor of

Abilene,Texas, uses the United States as

an example in discussing how communities

need to pull together to solve problems

that often transcend borders.

13

Gary McCaleb

thus no revenue was garnered. Several sessionsat the Washington meeting brought togetherlocal and U.S. government officials to discussways to resolve the potential problems createdby this new challenge.

But in a larger sense, the issue of electron-ic commerce may well serve as a symbol of thenew era and the changing nature of the issuesimpacting local government in the UnitedStates. If 1998 becomes the year rememberedas the beginning of the “age of electronic com-merce,” it should also be recognized for send-ing the following message to all governmentofficials:

As technology changes the ways we live and work, it will also change the nature of thechallenges for local government and thereforecall for new ways to meet those challenges.

In this case, old solutions will not solvenew problems. The framework currently inplace worked rather well for the way the United

States did business prior to 1998, but it offersno satisfactory solution to doing business in thisnew age.

Vir tua l Border s

The age of electronic mail and electronic com-merce treats fundamental components of ourthinking in different ways. City limits and coun-ty lines mean virtually nothing. State lines andnational borders are of diminishing signifi-cance. Distance is measured in minutes ratherthan miles.

Until recently, a city might be defined asthe area in which one would find home, work,school, church, shops, entertainment and recre-ation. It is becoming more and more likely thatthe location for some, if not most, of those partsof life are in different cities, sometimes in dif-ferent states and occasionally in different coun-tries. The lines of city, county and state havebecome blurred if not erased. Those same linesare therefore no longer as likely to contain com-plete problems or complete solutions.

A brief look at five different areas—com-merce, safety, health, education and communi-ty—will demonstrate how the changing natureof problems calls for new ways of thinking aboutthe role and response of local governments inthe United States.

Commerce

Commerce has long been an issue with impor-tant local implications and it will continue to beso. The advent of electronic commerce meansthat local citizens will shop in new and differentways. It also means that people will work in dif-

14

ferent ways. The massive downsizing of tradi-tional industrial jobs is occurring simultaneous-ly with an explosion of employment opportuni-ties in the high-tech information field. This hascreated both positive and negative conse-quences at the local level.

Some cities have seen the positive effectscounterbalance the negative. Other cities havebeen impacted far more by one than the other.The same technology that allows people to pur-chase by electronic commerce can shift jobsfrom where people would have shopped towhere they will shop.

Services also are being relocated electron-ically. Mail once sorted by hand can now besorted electronically from some distant loca-tion. In my city of Abilene, several hundredjobs were recently created to electronicallyencode mail located in cities hundred of milesaway.

The widespread use of cellular phones, faxmachines and e-mail now allows many peopleto work from a location of their choice. Oneentrepreneurial businessman recentlyremarked that he could operate his multi-state,transnational air-cargo business from anywhereas long as he had phone, fax and e-mail access.

Safety

Surveys of locally elected officials in the UnitedStates have found safety concerns consistentlyat the top of the list. Crime has become insepa-rably connected to drugs and drug traffickingcrosses all lines—at city, county, state andnational levels. Thus, it has become impossibleand impractical to separate the local drug/crimeissues from the international drug/crime issues.

Law enforcement officials know they canbe more effective in their work if the problem isdefined and approached at both the neighbor-hood and national levels. New technology isbeing used to develop programs which createnew ways for neighbors to work with one anoth-er and for nations to work together.

But safety issues do not shape themselvesneatly across city, state or national lines.Contemporary solutions call for new thinking.Many of the most successful new solutions tosafety and other issues come from recognizingthat a problem does not belong exclusively to acity, a state or a country. Issues defy the lines ofthese traditional lines of thinking, calling foryet-to-be-defined solutions. The attempt tosolve these problems in the age of technologywill call for the city, state and federal levels ofgovernment to find new ways of working togeth-er to shape successful solution strategies.

The drug traffic issue provides a helpfulillustration. The area along both sides of theborder between nations defines the problemand thus a corresponding solution strategy. It isnot exclusively a national problem; all parts ofthe nation cannot equally contribute to the solu-tion and neither can all states or all cities. Yet,it is a problem which suggests that someresources and involvement are needed fromeach of the three levels of government. Forexample, the federal government should workbeyond its traditional position in both direc-tions (transnational and sub-national) and thelocal government should reach beyond its area(in terms of regions and neighborhoods) andprovide new and more promising solutions.

From the perspective of history, thisapproach represents a complete reversal for therole of a city. For hundreds of years, the city

offered safety to its inhabitants through thesecurity of its walls. But those ancient wallswere removed much more easily than the“walled thinking” of both city and federal offi-cials regarding the role of local government insolving today’s problems.

Heal th

City health issues include, but are not limitedto, adequate and safe drinking water, refuse dis-posal and control of contagious diseases. Allthree issues are examples of ways the nature ofthe problem or the shape of the best solutioncould lie outside the jurisdiction of the city, butremain in the community at large.

Yet, the federal government has becomeinvolved in all three of these areas in the UnitedStates. Much of its involvement recently tookthe form of congressional legislation known as“federal unfunded mandates.” This legislationwas resented at the local level for three reasons:the rules for solution were formulated at thefederal level without input from the states; thesolutions were unfunded, thus leaving the con-siderable cost of implementation to local bud-gets; and the solutions were mandated, leavingno freedom to local governments to shape theirown solution, but instead, imposing stiff finan-cial penalties for failure to comply.

Issues of safe water and refuse disposal arenot entirely within traditional city limits.Innovative solutions are being found as groupsof American cities sharing a common problemwithin their region work together. Ten years ago there were 31 landfills in the Abilene areaof West Texas. Today there are six. There were no mandates, total costs were reduced andregional cooperation was enhanced. Similar

approaches have occurred among cities sharingthe same water source or seeking to build acommon reservoir.

Educat ion

An old issue that is returning with new intensi-ty to the forefront in the United States is educa-tion. Perhaps no issue better demonstrates theability to encompass, at the same time, bothpersonal and global implications.

American parents have become increas-ingly concerned about the quality of education.State and federal officials have spoken fre-quently about their concern for the ways thateducation in the public schools impacts thelocal work force. Studies have reported that thesituation is not improving. Some city govern-ments including Chicago and Boston, feel theymust become more directly involved in the localschools. Failure to properly respond to the edu-cation issues will tend to permeate other issuessuch as work force and safety.

This personal and local perspective iscounterbalanced by the global growth of what is called “distance-learning.” Virtual schoolsare electronically enrolling thousands of stu-dents across state and national borders. Future implications of electronic education extend intoother areas, including commerce, jobs and travel.

Community

While this issue is perhaps less tangibleand more difficult to define, it cannot beignored. The degree to which people feel asense of connectedness to others is important.The extent to which the dialogue within the city

15

16

can be framed in terms of “we” rather than“they” makes a difference in the way problemsare perceived and solutions are framed. Theway that community issues are addressed andresolved has much to do with drawing ustogether or pulling us apart. Community issuesin the United States include cultural and eco-nomic diversity, unemployment, hunger andhomelessness. These issues are frequently list-ed by the federal government as top prioritiesfor legislation and funding. Yet, some of the bestwork is being done at the local level, often bynongovernment organizations (NGOs) or othernonprofit organizations.

New Al l i ances , New Des igns

If government at any level is to provide betterservice to its citizens and better solutions totheir problems, the traditional levels that areusually associated with government cannotoperate in isolation. Local government must beable to work in alliance with federal and stategovernment as a partner rather than as an out-side interest group. At the same time, local gov-ernment must also create appropriate allianceswith business, nonprofit and nongovernmentorganizations and agencies. Regions shouldcross city limits and county lines and, possiblyeven state lines.

This is already happening in Columbus,Ohio, which is addressing many issues with asix-county metropolitan area approach. In theSeattle, Washington, area a regional council ofalmost 30 mayors was recently formed to workcooperatively on issues of public safety, trans-portation, environment and tourism. The cen-tral valley of California is working on new waysto do regional planning for issues such as hous-

ing, transportation and water for a population of 5 million in an area projected to reach 15 mil-lion by 2040.

A regional approach may be the best hopeof a new relationship with the federal govern-ment because both sides will have moved out-side their traditional “walled thinking.” As thisoccurs, the importance of “decentralization”and “devolution” at the federal level will takeon new meaning. A truly decentralized federalgovernment reaching down to the regionalizedlocal government should result in the two levelsfinding new and effective ways of workingtogether.

The new designs come when the newalliances embrace the new technology of theage. For city government, this means, first, anew alliance with the people on behalf of theirneighborhood, and second, a new alliance withthe federal government, on behalf of theregions. In doing so, the new solutions will bet-ter fit the new problems. And, as a result, newmeaning is given to Abraham Lincoln’s descrip-tion of government “of the people, by the peo-ple and for the people.”

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

17

WHEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS of theAmerican Revolution met in Philadelphia in1787 to write the U.S. Constitution, a cardinalprinciple on which they all agreed was thatpower should not be concentrated in one per-son, or among one group or in one place.Having suffered the effects of what they felt wasarbitrary rule from a colonial power, they wereintent on encasing the Republic’s new form ofgovernment in a system of checks and balancesto preserve the liberties of people who were nowcitizens and not subjects.

The division of power at the federal levelbetween the president, Congress and theSupreme Court is the most salient example ofthe checks and balances in the U.S.Constitution—but not the only one. TheFounding Fathers also wanted a check and bal-ance on the power exercised by the federal gov-ernment over the states and localities. JamesMadison, regarded as the most important archi-tect of the Constitution, stated it succinctly.

D e m o c r a t i c L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t

The Powers of Local Government in the United States

by Dav id R . Berman

Several years ago the mayor of a medium-

sized American city identified his three major

problems as “money, finances and revenues.”

He, like other local government officials in

the United States, had limited control over

his financial problems.With an improved

economy in the United States today, strains

on local budgets have eased somewhat. Still,

there is much the states could do to help

local officials cope with the financial demands

on them, as well as limit their own agendas

in dealing with local governments. It is a story

as old as the Republic itself.What should be

the powers of local and state government,

particularly to raise revenue, and how inde-

pendent should they be from the federal

government? In the following article, David R.

Berman, political science professor at Arizona

State University and an expert on state and

local government, explains the nature of the

U.S. system, and highlights some trends.This

article is adapted from his analysis of state

and local government relations that first

appeared in the Municipal Year Book.

18

David R. Berman

“The powers delegated...to the federal gov-ernment are few and defined.” Accordingly, theFounders determined that local government inthe United States should be under the control—loosely under the control—of the states, and notthe federal government.

The U.S. government has the power to taxand spend, but so do local authorities—underthe guidance of the states—independent of thefederal government. Overseas visitors are oftenastounded by the myriad of issues determinedat the local level in the United States, a degreeof decentralization once viewed as wasteful andconfusing by some, but now increasingly ofinterest in countries where concentration ofpower at the center has led to less than desir-able results.

The U.S. view always has been that gov-ernment is best that is closest to the people.And if, for example, Kansans want to pave theirhighways differently from North Carolinians, orestablish a different school curriculum, the

Constitution guarantees that they may do so.Indeed, most states afford their local govern-ments considerable flexibility in maximizinglocal control independent of state government,let alone the federal government. This includesthe raising of local revenues within certainparameters which differ widely from state tostate.

Major Sources of Loca lRevenue

Local authorities—mostly county and city governments—in the United States raise over65 percent of their own revenues, a significantportion that most would like to either maintainor increase based on the belief that locally gen-erated revenues maximize local control. Theremainder of their funding is obtained from avariety of sources, including the individualstate and federal governments. But some of thatassistance comes with strings attached.

As far as locally generated revenues areconcerned, a major source of funding in almostevery locality is the property tax on homes andcommercial real estate. For the most part, sig-nificant property holdings, as well as income,are considered as major sources for the fundingof government. Property taxes are the largest,single source of local government revenues—atabout 26 percent of their total funding. Fivepercent of local government revenues comesfrom locally adopted sales taxes (allowed byslightly more than half the states), two percentcomes from an individual local income tax(allowed by a small number of states), andabout 14 percent from user fees and miscella-neous charges.

19

States also contribute to the local revenuepot, mostly in the form of grants and throughreturning a portion of state tax revenues to localgovernments. Grants are usually designated forspecific programs, such as for education ortransportation, though most states also provideunrestricted grants as well. State sales, incomeand gasoline tax revenues are the fundingsources most often shared with local govern-ments. As is the case with grants, some of thisrevenue is unrestricted, and some is earmarkedfor specific purposes, such as highway improve-ments. State aid to cities generally averagesabout a third of all state expenditures.

Over the past two decades, user fees havebeen used increasingly to finance a variety ofservices at the local level—everything frompaying for water and sewage to funding variousforms of transportation services. The trend isbased on the belief that, ideally, the direct userof a service should pay for it. Even indirectusers are sometimes assessed. For example,fees are often imposed on developers of resi-dential and commercial real estate to offset thecosts of building or expanding, roads, sewersand other services that facilitate their projects.

Additional revenues are earned from avariety of other sources, including locallyowned enterprises, such as state-operated alco-holic beverage stores and legalized gamblingoperations, and the issuance of local bonds,particularly for highway projects.

Checks On Loca lGovernment

The powers granted to the states under theConstitution—and through the states to localgovernment—are viewed as a check and bal-

ance on federal control. In recent years, how-ever, voters have sought to check the power oflocal government as well, especially in caseswhere they considered that taxes were too highor the programs of municipal authorities tooambitious.

In addition to the obvious check providedby elections, voters in many cities have madeuse of referenda to force changes on both stateand local government. Referenda, or ballot ini-tiatives, an example of direct democracy, are inuse in about half the states.

In recent decades, California voters haveset the pace. In 1978, they approved Proposi-tion 13, which capped local property tax ratesand limited increases in assessed property val-ues except when the property was sold. Throughthe adoption of a series of other propositions,California now requires that virtually all localrevenue-raising actions (taxes, fees, charges)be approved by two-thirds or more of the voters.

Similar restrictions on the power of stateand local government have been forced in otherstates—not by the federal government—but bythe voters themselves. In states that do not havereferenda, voters and other interested partiesoften work through state legislatures to enactrestrictions on local governments they believehave become too powerful.

Media also act as a check on local govern-ment in the United States. Although there are afew national broadcast networks and nationalnewspapers, most media in the U.S. are local. If local government proposes a tax increase, for example, whether considered justified ornot, the local newspapers, television and radiostations will, without fail, report on it and makesure citizens are informed.

20

Trends in Loca l Governmentin the U.S .

Whereas there has been a trend in recent yearsfor voters to try to restrict the powers of localgovernment, there also has been a countervail-ing trend at the state and federal level towardmore decentralization or devolution in askinglocal authorities to undertake more initiativeslocally and to pick up more of the cost.

This has encouraged local governments togenerate even more creative schemes for raisingrevenue. They include: targeted tax increases,contracting out city services and entering intopartnerships with other local governments torationalize service delivery. In most cases,states look upon the creation of such regionalefforts and initiatives with favor.

While securing more revenue authority isstill important to local officials, some haveplaced equal or even greater emphasis onreducing state mandates, that is, costly pro-grams that state governments require localadministrations to adapt without providingfunding. Consequently, there is a trend towardthe reduction of state mandates on local author-ities.

The trend toward more decentralization isnot absolute, however. Some states haveassumed more responsibility, particularly forthe financing of local courts and prisons, forindigent health care and certain forms of wel-fare assistance. Shifting financial responsibilityfor a program to the state provides financialrelief to local governments, but the price issometimes a loss of local control, which somejurisdictions are reluctant to accept.

The precise relationship between state andlocal government is clearly complex and evolv-

ing. It also is wildly diverse. In some states,local governments have much more indepen-dence from the state—and revenue-raisingauthority—than in others. There is no one pat-tern of local government in the United States,nor one universal relationship between a stateand the local jurisdictions within it.

It also is clear that power and authoritybetween the two levels of government oftenhave ebbed and flowed during different periodsin American history—in response to court rul-ings, and to economic, social, political andtechnological circumstances. Some cities arewealthier than others and better able to runtheir own affairs. Some are more dependent onthe state for assistance. The overall trend inrecent years on balance is toward returning asmuch authority as possible to local government.

A consistent principle throughout the his-tory of the United States, however, is that stategovernments—and through them local authori-ties—have separate powers under theConstitution that the federal government cannotabrogate. The principle is enshrined in theTenth Amendment to the Constitution, whichreads: “The powers not delegated to the UnitedStates (the federal government), nor prohibitedby it to the states, are reserved to the statesrespectively, or to the people.”

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

21

Toward the end of the last century, and in this

century especially, a number of organizations

formed to represent the interests of local govern-

ment at the state as well as at the national level.

Two of the most important are the National League

of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

The National League of Cities seeks to influence

state government on behalf of local governments

primarily through its state municipal leagues. The

state municipal league movement began in the late

19th century. It now provides services to cities and

acts as a forum to promote cooperation among

cities in addition to its key role of serving municipal

interests at the state level.

Among the services provided by the U.S. Confer-

ence of Mayors are information and technical assis-

tance to city governments. It also produces reports

about major problems confronting cities and con-

ducts national education campaigns to persuade the

public and officials serving in other levels of govern-

ment of the importance of local issues. Both the

National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference

of Mayors also represent the interests of cities at

the federal level.

A d vo c a t e s f o r L o c a l G o ve r n m e n t

YOU CAN FEEL the history just walkingalong the streets of this Southern city. In 1864,it was burned to the ground on the orders ofGeneral William Tecumseh Sherman after hisUnion troops captured it during their marchthrough the vanquished states of the Confed-eracy, an event immortalized in the minds ofmoviegoers around the world in “Gone WithThe Wind.” The restored home of MargaretMitchell, the author of the book on which themovie was based, is a much visited attractionhere.

In more recent decades, Atlanta becamefamous as the birthplace of Dr. Martin LutherKing, Jr., the leader of the American civil rightsmovement. The Martin Luther King Center forNonviolent Social Change, the institution hiswidow, Coretta, built in his memory, stands nextto the Ebenezer Baptist Church where hepreached racial brotherhood at a time when itwas controversial.

22

D e m o c r a t i c L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t

The New Face of Atlanta

by Dav id P i t t s

During the American civil rights movement

of the 1950s and 1960s, Atlanta, Georgia,

earned a reputation as a city where blacks

and whites, the two major ethnic groups

living there, could get along. It became

known as the city that is too busy to hate

and, later, as the capital of the New South.

In recent years, however, Atlanta’s popula-

tion has become even more diverse as

new immigrants from all over the world,

attracted by the city’s economic boom,

have moved to the area. Contributing

editor David Pitts explores the new face

of Atlanta and looks at how the city and

county governments, civil rights organiza-

tions, NGOs and committed individuals

continue the struggle to make Atlanta a

city that works for everyone.

23

In many ways, Atlanta is a study in blackand white—of how two races, once far apartbecause of a legally imposed system of segrega-tion, gradually learned to live together. It is ajourney—people here will remind you—that isnot yet complete.

The New At lantans

In the Atlanta of the 1990s, however, “every-one” means more than just black and whiteAmericans, and the language spoken here is nolonger just English. Increasingly, long-term res-idents are living next door to Africans, Asians,Central and South Americans, and EastEuropeans. Atlanta is becoming a melting pot,the latest in a long line of American cities tobecome a mecca for immigrants.

Some of the newcomers are internalmigrants from cities like Miami and New York,but many are immigrants and refugees whosefirst home in America is Atlanta. More than450,000 immigrants and 65,000 refugees nowlive in metro Atlanta out of a total area popula-tion of three-and-one-half million, according to the Center for Applied Research andAnthropology at Georgia State University.

A favorite gathering spot for many of thenewcomers is the Buford Highway Flea Marketjust outside the city. Sun Kim, an immigrantfrom Korea who runs a jewelry store in the mar-ket, says she came to Atlanta three years agobecause she had relatives here and becausethey “told me the city has lots of opportunitiesbecause of the economy.” She also gives anoth-er reason: the city’s affordability. “Atlanta is amuch cheaper place to live than many othercities—especially housing.”

Vanessa Kosky, from Venezuela, speaksfluent English and helps new immigrants“mostly from Central and South America to gettags and titles for their cars.” The Buford mar-ket is “a favorite gathering spot,” she says,especially for Latinos “most of whom came hereto take jobs in the construction trade, which areplentiful because of the building boom. Theyadjust very well; the main problem is learningEnglish.”

Sun Kim and Vanessa Kosky are part of thenew face of Atlanta, a city much more cos-mopolitan than it was just a few years ago. TheU.S. Census Bureau reports that between 1990and 1994, Atlanta’s population grew by 11 per-cent. During the same period, the Hispanic andAsian populations grew by 42 percent. Thenumber of East Europeans and Africans isgrowing even more rapidly. More than 5,000Nigerians, for example, now live in Atlanta, onereason recent political developments in theirhomeland was front page news here. City offi-cials say Atlanta’s credentials as a leader indesegregation helped it establish a reputationfor fairness and openness that is attractive tonewcomers.

In the 1980s, the State Department pickedAtlanta as one of the main cities to receiverefugees. Preparations for the 1996 Olympicsattracted additional numbers of immigrants insearch of the jobs that came with it. Somestayed, many of them Hispanics—over 240,000now live here—making Atlanta one of the mostHispanic cities in the United States.

A Booming Economy

“The explanation for the move of immigrants to Atlanta is the city’s booming economy,”

says Kevin Hanna, president of the AtlantaDevelopment Authority, a city agency. Attract-ing business and promoting economic growth“has helped enormously” to ensure that diver-sity works in a city that already had a reputationfor welcoming minorities, he adds.

In this respect, Atlanta’s record is secondto none. According to Fortune magazine, thecity led the nation during the 1990s in job cre-ation. More than 700 of the nation’s Fortune1000 companies have operations here and 23are headquartered here, among them Coca-Colaand Bell South. The world’s broadcast newsnetwork, CNN, also counts the city as its home.

The Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerceis working with elected local officials to makethe city’s pro-business climate even moreattractive to companies wishing to locate here.Their initiatives are the basis of “ForwardAtlanta,” a five-year economic developmentmarketing campaign that is worldwide in scope.

Much of the growth has been in Atlanta’ssuburbs, but the city also has benefited fromthe boom. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in a recent story titled “CentralCity Comeback,” more than three dozen pro-jects are rising in the center city or takingshape on developers’ drawing boards and incorporate boardrooms.

“Atlanta is doing better than almost anyother place,” says Dr. Art Murphy of GeorgiaState University, an expert on new immigrants.“It has developed into an international city witha reputation for affordability, a hospitable envi-ronment for minorities and immigrants, and ahigh quality of life,” he adds.

“Officials here realized long ago that busi-ness wants to locate to cities renowned for theirquality of life as well as their commitment toeconomic progress,” Hanna says. Top class uni-versities, a flourishing arts community andplunging crime rates—the lowest in 30 years—all are important in attracting business and thisin turn helps create an environment that is con-ducive to good relations among the ethnicgroups which live here, he continues.

Reducing crime has been a particularfocus of the local government, which, like someother cites such as New Orleans and New York,has sought to make its police force more profes-sional and better equipped. Among the mea-sures passed by the city council just this yearwas a $2,000 raise for police officers. Publicsafety programs account for almost 50 percentof the general-fund budget. Much of that is forpolice and courts, but a significant portion alsois expended on crime prevention and communi-ty relations, including relations with the newimmigrant community.

Br idg ing the Gap

Nongovernment organizations (NGOs) also areinvolved in the city’s community relationseffort. Bridging the Gap is an NGO that partic-ularly caters to new immigrants. “You have toreach out to these groups with special programsthat help with everyday problems of adjusting toa new society and a new city,” says GailHoffman, director of the organization, whichwas formed in 1994 and receives funding fromboth government and private foundations.

“For example, many of the new immigrantscome from countries where they were afraid of

24

25

the police and the government. That is why webegan a program of workshops to help themunderstand the system here” and their democ-ratic rights, Hoffman notes. In some of thecountries from which the new immigrants came,the police force, for example, is a national orga-nization in contrast to the United States, whereit is municipally organized and responsible toelected local officials; for this reason, manynew immigrants are suspicious of authority, sheadds.

Among the services that Bridging the Gapprovides are: diversity training for local lawenforcement, a bank of interpreters to help newimmigrants who have not yet learned English,citizenship classes, crime prevention, and legalaid on immigration and other issues. The orga-nization also convenes meetings among differ-ent ethnic groups in the city. Creating better

understanding is a two-way street, says Hoff-man. Long-term residents “also need to under-stand the cultures of the new immigrants andthe value of them.”

Some new immigrants also benefit from the city’s commitment to affirmative action, ini-tially begun as a means to achieve greateropportunities for women and African Ameri-cans. Currently, more than 800 businesses inAtlanta are certified as minority/female firms in112 different areas, according to the mayor’soffice. This is in addition to federal and stateaffirmative action programs. “We take minorityrights in Atlanta very seriously,” a spokesper-son for the city’s Office of Contract Complianceremarked. “The set-aside program here was oneof the first in the nation, dating back to the1970s.”

Immigrants settling in Atlanta receive training for

U.S. citizenship from nongovernment organizations.

26

The Problems of Progress

Although Atlanta is clearly a city that works andin which overall living standards are rising, it is not without problems, some of them a directresult of its success.

A major problem, common to many U.S.cities, is the flight of the middle class—bothblack and white—to the suburbs in pursuit of abetter quality of life and better local services.The city’s loss of middle-class residents hasresulted in a two-pronged income distributionwith large numbers of low-income residents anda minority of relatively affluent residents.According to Research Atlanta, Inc., the cityhas a smaller percentage of households withincomes between $25,000 and $50,000 thanany other large U.S. city except Miami and NewOrleans.

Inner city poverty is a problem that haspreoccupied many of the city’s mayors in recent years. It centers largely on the city’sAfrican American population on the westernand southern side of the city, but also includessome new immigrants. Two years ago, currentMayor Bill Campbell, who is African American,re-convened the Atlanta Summit AgainstPoverty, which was initiated by former MayorMaynard Jackson. But despite many initiativesby the city government and other organizations,the problem remains stubbornly intractable.

One trend that may help is the increasingtendency of major corporations here to elimi-nate suburban office locations in favor of con-solidation of employment at their in-city loca-tions. Bell South, for example, a communica-tions giant which has 100 office locations in the

The Atlanta Police Department conducts a

special outreach program on crime prevention

measures for new immigrants.

metro area, recently announced it is closing 75 outlying locations and consolidating opera-tions within city boundaries.

“As we approach a new millennium, wemust have a combined approach that works foreveryone,” says Campbell. “We must work longand hard to combine our talents, energy andresources to break the cycle of poverty and cre-ate a better quality of life for every Atlantan.”Sources in the mayor’s office say he realizesthat it is not just a question of attacking thecauses of inner-city poverty head on, but alsoimproving city services—especially schools—to lure more middle-class residents living in thesuburbs back into the city.

For the Campbell administration, as forgovernments at all levels elsewhere, governingmust be a careful balancing act—responding tovoters who have competing needs as well as thedemands of special interests, such as businessand labor. In this regard, taxes are a key issue.Local governments in the United States havetaxing authority. Atlanta’s quandary is commonto many U.S. cities—how to set local taxes highenough to pay for programs for people who needthem, but low enough for people who don’t, many of whom feel they already pay too muchcompared to their counterparts outside the citylimits.

In addition to the uneven pattern of eco-nomic progress, the area also is tackling infra-structure problems that, if not surmounted, mayhinder further development. According to theWashington Post, residents of burgeoningAtlanta spend more time in their cars than any-where else in America, including Los Angeles.Each day, the newspaper reported the averagemetro-Atlantan drives 34 miles to get to work

along crowded and congested freeways thathave been getting worse.

A major cause of the problem, according tosome observers, has been inadequate coordina-tion among the 10 counties in the region andthe city government, which is located in FultonCounty. The infrastructure issue, perhaps morethan any other, illustrates that local govern-ments in modern societies cannot act in isola-tion, but must carefully coordinate with electedofficials from adjacent jurisdictions.

Par tner sh ip wi th Reg iona l ,S tate and Federa l Author i t ies

In the Atlanta area, the focal point of inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination isthe Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), whichtogether with its predecessor agencies, hastackled planning efforts in the area since 1947when Atlanta leaders created the first publiclysupported, multi-county planning agency in thenation.

ARC provides a forum “where elected andappointed officials from these local govern-ments, along with other community leaders,come together to address mutual challenges andopportunities,” says Wayne Hill, ARC chair-man. “With input from the community, thecommission sets policies and resolves issues ofregionwide consequence,” he adds. The situa-tion confronting new immigrants is such anissue since they live and work throughout thearea, not just in the city. For example, DeKalbCounty, east of Atlanta, is particularly popularwith new immigrants.

In addition to being a primary player onthe ARC, the city also maintains a relationshipwith the state and federal government as well,

27

particularly to take advantage of programs and grants they offer that might benefit Atlantans.For example, the city lobbied the federal gov-ernment to be designated an EmpowermentZone. It was one of only six cities in the nationto be selected, which won Atlanta $250 millionin grants and tax incentives. New housing andjobs are being created in the zoned, mostly poor,neighborhoods of the city.

Atlanta also has received a federal grantworth almost $13 million for community polic-ing programs. In order to obtain a grant, a cityusually is required to meet prescribed stan-dards, and audits are conducted to ensure fed-eral funds are spent as intended.

Speaking in January in his 1999 state ofthe city address, Mayor Campbell laid particu-lar emphasis on the city’s partnerships not onlywith other levels of government, but also NGOs.Atlanta has sought “to forge partnerships withevery member of the Atlanta community, thecity council, city employees, the private sector,the teachers, the unions, the clergy, the non-profits, the neighborhoods, regional leaders,and also those agencies in the state andWashington that make a difference locally,” he said.

One such partnership is the recently-formed Atlanta Advisory Committee onTechnology and Communications, a group thatbrings together experts from business, acade-mia and the technology community. The pur-pose: to make local government smarter, partic-ularly in the delivery of services, and to ensurethat all Atlantans, including public school stu-dents, have access to technology. “Other thanthe civil rights movement, there is no more fun-damental change in society than that which

technology can and will bring about,” Campbellsays. “It can be the greatest equalizer that wehave known.”

A Vibr ant Loca l Media

As in many cities, the most important localmedia in Atlanta are the affiliates of the fourmajor commercial broadcast networks, whichhave extensive local news operations, and the city—and state’s—major newspaper, theAtlanta Journal-Constitution (which puts outtwo editions on weekdays), a progressive publi-cation with a massive circulation of 1.5 millionthat has a long reputation for coverage of minor-ity communities and promoting communitycohesion.

Elected local officials in Atlanta, like theirnational counterparts, complain about themedia, but an alert and active free press helpsbring problems to the attention of the publicand politicians, and helps build a consensus for action.

But occasionally, locally elected officialsconcede that the media’s reporting of problemscan be a plus. There has been at least one ben-efit from press reporting on freeway congestion,for example. According to city officials, middle-class suburbanites, tired of long commutes, arebeginning to move back to the city where con-gestion is not as bad, partly because of MARTA,the city’s mass transit system.

Don Melvin, a reporter at the Journal-Constitution, says local elected officials have tobe concerned about what the media is reportingbecause of its influence with the public. Theissues, pro and con, are covered as well as

28

scandals and abuses that may occur. “Our roleis essentially that of a watchdog,” he adds.

Melvin, who has authored a number of sto-ries of interest to new immigrants including arecent page one story on Nigeria, says theJournal-Constitution has featured “extensivecoverage” of the newcomers. “We try very hardto paint an evolving portrait of the city, perhapsmore than newspapers elsewhere,” he adds.

In addition to the Journal-Constitution,there are now a number of local newspapersspecifically aimed at new immigrants, such asMundo Hispanico and Neyia, which report localnews of interest as well as international devel-opments in their countries of origin. A growingnumber of radio stations also cater to the new-comers.

Making Diver s i ty Wor k

Atlanta is a case study in how a modern city canmake diversity work. An aggressive, progres-sive independent local media is clearly oneingredient. But key is the commitment of thecity, local governments in adjacent jurisdic-tions, and business and other groups—particu-larly NGOs—in fostering economic growth, agood quality of life, a high degree of safety anda welcoming attitude to newcomers.

The city’s major problem, an urban under-class that has insufficiently enjoyed the fruits ofeconomic success, is self evidently not uniqueto Atlanta. How to solve it is a topic of muchdebate here as well as elsewhere in the UnitedStates.

Talk to new immigrants in Atlanta about allof this and chances are a few will offer detailedviewpoints. “I don’t take a lot of interest in all

the issues, partly because business is boomingand I’m very busy,” says Irina Levotov, whocame here from Russia and sells real estate,mostly to other Russians. “But I love livinghere. It’s a great place and people get along.”

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

29

The Atlanta city government, like that in other U.S.

cities, is divided into three bodies: the executive, leg-

islative and judicial branches. Each authority acts as

a check and balance on the other, in a similar way

to government at the state and federal levels.

The Atlanta mayor serves as the chief executive and

runs the government departments. The council

serves as the local legislature. It is made up of 12

members elected by district, and six members

elected at large. The president of the city council

presides at all meetings of the council and votes in

case of a tie. He also appoints chairs and members

of the various committees, where the real work of

putting together legislation—called ordinances and

resolutions—takes place. His decisions can be

changed by a majority of the council. Both the

mayor and city council members are elected to

four-year terms.

Citizens of Atlanta have an opportunity to appear

before the council committees and express their

views about proposed legislation. In some cases, the

council is required by law to hold public hearings

and must notify the public of such hearings before

legislation can be finalized. As is commonplace in

many other jurisdictions in the United States, the

mayor can either approve or veto legislation. If

vetoed, the council can override, but only with a

two-thirds vote.

Before 1974, all council members were elected at

large in Atlanta. That is still the case in some U.S.

cities.The proponents of at least a number of seats

on local councils being set aside to represent dis-

tricts, rather than having all seats at large, argue the

system is preferable in two important respects: one,

it fosters better constituency service; and, two, it

promotes minority representation in cases where a

particular group may be a minority in the city as a

whole, but not in a particular district.

On the judicial side, just as laws passed at the fed-

eral level are sometimes overturned by the federal

courts on constitutional grounds, actions taken by

local and state executives, and legislatures also are

subject to review by local and state courts.

The Atlanta Regional Commission, the body

responsible for a coordinated approach to prob-

lems and issues in the Atlanta metro area, includes

representatives from all the jurisdictions in the vicin-

ity, including the mayor of Atlanta, each county com-

mission chairman in the region, 15 private citizens,

and one nonvoting member from the Georgia

Department of Community Affairs, a state agency.

30

T h e A t l a n t a G ove r n m e n t

Moderator. Today, there’s so much talk about theglobal economy and high business mobility. MayorCleaver, do you feel, as a mayor of a large city,under more pressure to play an active role in mar-keting your city?

Mayor Cleaver. With regard to bringing busi-nesses to town…we sell our central location….Being in the Midwest, you actually have greater access to both coasts in terms of the availabili-ty of staff during working hours. We found thatthat’s a big deal to companies. Many of themhadn’t even thought about the time aspect….

We also decided that it’s important for usto market our history, which most people don’tknow about. So we market the fact that this isformer CBS newsman Walter Cronkite’s home-town. This is Walt Disney’s hometown. This isthe hometown of Hallmark Greeting Cards.Sprint, the telecommunications company, alsostarted here. We try to use the things that peo-ple would know about.

And we found that when you compare thecost of housing in Kansas City to most of the

31

D e m o c r a t i c L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t

Marketing Cities for Development

One of the most important aspects of

promoting a city is in making it attractive

to businesses and as a haven for tourists.

In this discussion between one current

and two former mayors, we look at how

three U.S. cities market themselves. First

up, Emanuel Cleaver II, the outgoing mayor

of Kansas City, Missouri, and Gene Roberts,

the former mayor of Chattanooga,Ten-

nesse, talk about the pluses and minuses

of promoting a city in a highly competitive

market. And later, Art Agnos, the former

mayor of San Francisco, California, discuss-

es marketing a city as a tourist attraction.

Contributing Editor Susan Cleary serves

as moderator.

major cities in the United States, we are far, farless expensive.

Moderator. It’s interesting to look at what youradvantages are as a city. For example, I noticedthat your slogan in Kansas City is “City ofFountains, Heart of the Nation.” How did youstart that process?

Mayor Cleaver. We had to look at what we felt wehad that other cities didn’t have. For example,we have more fountains in Kansas City than anycity in the world except Rome. So our city logonow is “The Fountain….” We thought the bestway to market that was to put it into our sloganand into our city logo….

Moderator. Mayor Roberts, I understand thatwhen you were mayor of Chattanooga, you wonseveral awards for environmental management.That also seems to be a good way of highlightingthe advantages that a city has. Can you talk abouthow you have used that recognition?

Mayor Roberts. Frankly, the awards gave us aniche: to have been so bad and changed somuch in almost three decades. In that time,we’ve addressed some real problems in the community: air pollution, water pollution, thelook of our city. We probably had the worst airpollution in the country in the 1960s. Fordecades, you couldn’t see the city from LookoutMountain on many days. So we asked ourselvesseveral questions: How do you address theproblem of pollution? And how do you put pub-lic-private partnerships together? How do youapproach the problem of storm-water run-offinto the rivers and streams in your city? How doyou bring the business community in? All thesethings, we found, were of a great deal of interestto a lot of cities everywhere.

Moderator. Mayor Cleaver, did you find that it makes a difference to a business if you have apretty downtown or a good environment? Arethese quality-of-life issues really a selling point forbusiness?

Mayor Cleaver. Yes, they are. The NationalLeague of Cities did a study, and we followed upat the local level. We found that corporate exec-utives anywhere in the country live for the mostpart within 10 miles of their office. If that is thecase, then like everyone else, they’re going towant to have access to things of beauty. Wefound that people were very much interested indriving down a boulevard and seeing fountainsa few blocks from their home.

Mayor Roberts. Let me follow up on that toillustrate that point. We had one company whovisited us who looked at things like taxes, infra-structure, incentives. But the representativesalso looked at the school system and what kindof graduates we were turning out. And to thecultural arts scene in Chattanooga. So, yes,companies do look at the kinds of things thatMayor Cleaver was talking about just now. Moreso than most people imagine.

Moderator. What kind of organizations do youhave in Kansas City, for example, that help a busi-ness come up with that information? Do you haveother organizations that you feel have been veryhelpful in providing the kind of information, thekind of facilitator services that businesses need?

Mayor Cleaver. The answer is yes. Recently, Iflew to New Jersey to make a presentation withour governor to a company that has just pur-chased Hoechst-Marion-Rousselle, a Germanpharmaceutical company…. They have a planthere and when the merger is complete, we wantthem to move to Kansas City. When we went to

32

New Jersey…we took a video with Don Hall,who is the chairman of the board of HallmarkCards; Bill Esrey from Sprint and others. Inessence, they said, “Our international head-quarters are located in Kansas City and wewouldn’t move any other place.” So while it’snot necessarily an organization, we clearly callon the corporate community to help when weare trying to recruit new companies to town.

Moderator. What about in Chattanooga—whatkind of organizations do you have that will puttogether a plan to market a city?

Mayor Roberts. In 1983, we lost 6,000 good-paying industrial jobs almost overnight. Thecounty executive and I got together and decid-ed that we had a big job to do and we couldn’tdo it ourselves. So we went to the business com-munity and brought some of the key folkstogether, cited the problem, asked them to getinvolved. One of the ways they helped was tocreate the River City Company. They put up$10 million—all grants, no loans. Its job was tobegin the task of redeveloping our downtown, tobring new restaurants there, to bring new beau-ty there.

Later, the River City Company evolved intothe River Valley Company, which included notjust Chattanooga but some of our neighboringcities and counties. And through that appara-tus, the city and county, along with the businessleadership and some of our neighbors, now con-tribute money. In fact, they put in more than wedo. That’s the economic development arm ofthis city and this region.

Moderator. Do you feel, Mayor Cleaver, a growinginternational profile for Kansas City?

Mayor Cleaver. Believe it or not, our profession-al football team, the Kansas City Chiefs, has

helped in many ways. We played the MinnesotaVikings in Tokyo this past year…. I went overwith the team, and I met with business leadersin Tokyo. We found that in this growing globaleconomy, if you can’t compete with the othercities, not only around the United States, but inthe world, you’re going to lose.

In another area, we were designated as thesite for the Midwest International DistributionCenter. So we are now in the process of trying todevelop so that we can become the center forthe NAFTA trade route, which runs fromCanada through Kansas City down to the Stateof Jalisco in Mexico.

In fact, in the upcoming mayoral election,that’s one of the things that’s being discussed.Who can get us more connected with the worldeconomically?…. More and more, you’re goingto find U.S. cities trying to reach out to foreignmarkets and trying to get some of those marketsestablished in their cities.

Moderator. Does Chattanooga feel that samepressure—that same competitive urging?

Mayor Roberts. Yes, but we have to do it in adifferent way from Mayor Cleaver. We don’thave professional sports in Chattanooga, so wecompete at the amateur sports level. We com-pete for major softball tournaments across theUnited States, for example. The city, the countyand the university recently put their moneytogether with some private funds and built anOlympic-style softball stadium. We just built anew football/soccer stadium for the universityand we will bring in the national championshipgame to Chattanooga. So we do compete at thatlevel in sports. Sports is big business….

Moderator. Mayor Cleaver, what marketing toolsdo you use that any mayor might have available to

33

him or her? What sort of inexpensive ways does acity go about raising its profile?

Mayor Cleaver. By trying to get as many nation-al and international guests to visit the city…. Ithink giving people the opportunity to come intoyour city as opposed to buying $35 millionworth of air time or travelling around the worldis a much better idea. The mayor of Diyarbakor(Turkey), for example, has said he will come toKansas City this spring. I think having peoplecome in is a far less expensive way of gettingthe word out than trying to go out to give theword.

Moderator. What about the Internet? Kansas Citydoes have a lot on the Internet. Is that a tool thatyou’ve been involved with?

Mayor Cleaver. Yes, that’s intentional. We havea lot of information on the Internet and are try-ing to do even more through the EconomicDevelopment Corporation (EDC), which thestate government gave us authorization to cre-ate. The EDC is the economic arm of ourmunicipal government. I appoint the board, andthere is a president to oversee it. Three agen-cies come under the mantle of the EDC. One isthe Port Authority, which has control of theriverfront, the Missouri River. Because we haveriver boat gaming, the Port Authority becomes a major player. Another agency is the TaxIncrement Financing Commission, which usesincremental taxes to help support development.The other agency is Land Plans for Redevelop-ment…. Any time we have a major develop-ment, we have to assemble land, and thisagency has the right and the domain to do that.

Then there is a division called BusinessRetention, where we try to maintain constantcontact with all of the businesses in town.

Once a month we have a meeting with adifferent group of chief executive officers(CEOs) of various companies. We ask them ifthey have any problems. For instance, “Is thestreetlight working? Has the stop sign beenfixed?”

Moderator. Does Chattanooga have a similar way in which business and local government can interact?

Mayor Roberts. Yes, we do all those things thatMayor Cleaver mentioned in Kansas City: taxincrement financing, various kinds of incen-tives. We do a lot of work on the river…. But wedon’t have gambling, so we don’t get into thataspect of it. But other than that, we do all thosekinds of things to bring business to the city.

Moderator. Have either of you been involved inany international organizations that get mayorstogether?

Mayor Cleaver. Yes, we have the I-35 CorridorCoalition (named for the interstate highway thatruns through Kansas City), and we meet twice ayear. The mayors come all the way fromWinnipeg, Canada, down to Guadalajara,Mexico. We are trying to become the NAFTAcorridor, to take advantage of the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement.

Editor’s Note: Mayor Art Agnos joins the discussion

at this point.

Moderator. We’ve talked a little bit about howyou market your city to business, but we reallyhaven’t talked about tourism, which in itself, is abig industry. Is it also a way of attracting attentionof potential investors?

34

Mayor Agnos. Absolutely! We started doingsomething in San Francisco back in 1988 whenI first started learning about sister-city relation-ships—the notion of doing more than just cul-tural and business exchanges, but also offeringdiscount and higher priority to visitors, to busi-ness people that were from a sister city. Youtreat them like a member of a family…. The sis-ter-city relationship gives you a head start. InSan Francisco, for example, we worked out adiscount for a number of hotels for travelers thatcame from our sister cities. We also developeda visitor’s pass for tourist attractions where sis-ter-city visitors got a discount.

Moderator. Sometimes, it’s visitors that point outinteresting things about a city you might not havenoticed. How do you comb your city for ideas onnew ways to look at it or new ways to presentwhat you have?

Mayor Agnos. Our Convention and Visitor’sBureau does some of that. They also do follow-ups with visitors, where they talk to tourists tosee what appeals to them, what doesn’t appealto them. The Convention and Visitor’s Bureau isable to fund the research through the visitors’tax, the hotel tax, etc. And they perform thosekinds of services, as well as their primary func-tion, which is to seek and develop conventionbusiness for the city. Like any business, you’reconstantly trying to keep up with the customer.

Moderator. In San Francisco, does the city gov-

ernment work with the Convention and Visitor’s

Bureau to bring in businesses?

Mayor Agnos. Oh, absolutely. I’m a salesman forthe city in that regard. I remember after theearthquake in 1988, one of the first things I wasdoing—in addition to making sure the city was

getting what it needed to restore itself—wasphoning organizations who were thinking ofpulling out their conventions, reassuring themthat the city was ready to receive them and thatthey would have a successful business visit withtheir convention.

And of course, every mayor goes out withthe Convention and Visitor’s Bureau to givepresentations on the city.

Moderator. Are the presentations somethingthat’s put together exclusively by the mayor’soffice?

Mayor Agnos. They’re done together. TheConvention and Visitor’s Bureau tells you whoyour market is, and you speak to them as a rep-resentative of the city. After all, you know howto sell your city and so, you incorporate whatideas you want to emphasize.

Moderator. Mayor Agnos, do you have any tips formayors on getting media attention for a city? SanFrancisco is so well-known, you might not need todo that.

Mayor Agnos. It’s a lot easier here than it is insome other places. But every city has its attrac-tions. It’s just a matter of working hard to sell it.

Moderator. Well, I think our time is up. Thanks,everyone.

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

35

36

D e m o c r a t i c L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t

IN HIS BOOK, Democracy in America,Alexis de Tocqueville summed up Americans inthe following way: “In a local community, a cit-izen may conceive of some need that is notbeing met. What does he do? He goes acrossthe street and discusses it with his neighbor. Acommittee begins functioning on behalf of thatneed…. All of this is done by private citizenson their own initiative.”

One hundred sixty-four years later, thisability that Tocqueville heralded, the distinc-tive American way of “rolling up our sleeves”and solving the problem, is still the mostadmirable aspect of our American experimentwith democracy. And it still serves as a tremen-dous incentive at the grassroots level.

Despite the tendency toward negativism bythe media and the public, the American “can-do” spirit has survived and flourishes today inmany communities across the United States.One might take issue with Tocqueville’s assess-ment, however, when reading the newspaper or

Lessons for Local Government in the 21st Century

by Br uce Adams

Bruce Adams, founder and president

of A Greater Washington, an alliance of

business and community leaders working

to strengthen the national capital region,

once served as a council member in

Montgomery County, Maryland. In this

thought-provoking essay on how local

government in the United States has

evolved over the last two centuries, he

looks ahead and gives suggestions for

communities everywhere to follow in

the new millennium.

37

Bruce Adams

watching the nightly news. In those instances,an observer might conclude that nobody in theUnited States cares and few are even trying tomake a difference.

“But you’d be wrong,” says John W.Gardner, the founder of Common Cause, a non-profit, nonpartisan citizen’s lobbying organiza-tion that promotes open, honest and account-able government. “There are new signs of vital-ity all across America. There are many peopleworking hard for the public good in every com-munity in this nation,” he continues. “And insome places, there are enough of these peopleto have reached a critical mass and changed thepolitical culture of their communities.”

Reth ink ing Ci t i zenPar t ic ipat ion

With certain limited exceptions, U.S. citizenshave access to public documents and a right totestify at public hearings on significant legisla-tive and budget decisions. Public officials call

for public hearings on a regular basis—withcitizen participation encouraged—in order toconduct meetings on the business of the com-munity. Many local government legislative ses-sions are covered live on cable television.These formal aspects of local government guar-antee the access and openness that are at thecore of our democratic system, yet, in someways, they have become problematic.

Public hearings promote an oversimplifi-cation and polarization of issues by interestgroups, media and elected officials. There isusually a solution put on the table—forinstance, a bill or a budget proposal. The peo-ple who care most deeply about the issues showup at the hearing, ready to promote theirbeliefs. That is often the problem. Public hear-ings in the United States all too often havebecome battlegrounds for adversaries fightingover their preferred solutions. And in a lot ofcases, rather than look at what’s best for thepublic good, each participant thinks that onlyhis solution will work.

Over and over, I have found that the bestway to solve a problem is to brainstorm, that is,to gather a group of people with differing opin-ions and set them down to come up with a solu-tion with which everyone can agree.Unfortunately, this does not happen often in cit-izen-government interaction. In a world wherethe public and media tear into any controversialstatement, few elected or appointed officials, aswell as citizens themselves, are willing to sitdown and talk things over.

And with the advent of such things as tele-vision, public opinion polls and the ability toget information around the world instanta-neously, our ability to frustrate each other has

increased dramatically. We seem to be runningtoo fast, talking too loud, listening too selec-tively and thinking too little. As public policyissues have become more complicated, our pol-itics have become simplistic, our problemsmore intransigent.

The negative aspects of the positive forcesthat have served the United States well—anopen and participatory government, a free pressand a skeptical public—suggest the need torethink our notions of citizen participation.

Rebui ld ing Re lat ionsh ips

The goal of democracy is to improve the qual-ity of lives of the people. Building healthy com-munities is less about government structure andmore about building relationships. Thiscrossover of relationship building betweenboundaries or barriers that previously havebeen set is the key to breaking political grid-lock and thus being able to take action in thepublic interest.

Our natural tendency is to spend time withpeople who think and act pretty much the waywe do. Relationship building across traditionalboundaries is by definition an unnatural act. Ithas to be learned. It requires constant, hardwork. Success occurs in communities wherethere is communication, coordination and col-laborative action by many entities, among them,institutions, organizations, agencies and indi-viduals. On specific issues, successful commu-nities have the ability to see the connectionsand act on them.

To be able to bring people together on anissue, a leader must make the effort to buildtrust and credibility with representatives from

all factions and interests. This contrasts withthe traditional idea of “heroic leadership.” Wewant our leaders to be forceful and decisive,and to be in charge. Yet, these traits are at oddswith the skills needed by a new type of collab-orative leader.

In my days as a councilman, I found myselfconstantly trying to bring people together out-side of the formal public hearing process. Thosewho disagreed in an open forum, often wouldfind they had more in common in a neutral set-ting. Instead of conflict, they crafted a win-winsolution. These informal efforts provided mewith hope that we might be able to refashion ourdemocratic processes to fit the needs of ourtimes.

The challenge for the next century, then, isto reinvent democracy for modern times whilehonoring the essential elements of an informedand involved citizenry. The question that shouldbe asked is: Can we fashion a process where wetalk through issues with each other rather thanat each other?

I l lus t r at ions of Leader sh ip

In Boundary Crossers: Community Leadershipfor a Global Age, Neal Peirce and CurtisJohnson describe the complex leadership chal-lenges that face communities as they enter the21st century. From their study of successfulregions around the United States, Peirce andJohnson found illustrations of leadership fromoutside of government. An examination of theregions studied provides glimpses into howcommunities will need to operate in order to besuccessful in the next century.

38

In 1969, for example, the federal govern-ment announced that Chattanooga, Tennessee,had the foulest air in America. Fast-forward to1996, when the United Nations recognizedChattanooga as one of the worlds’ dozen-mostsustainable cities. In that 33-year interim, thecity created “Vision 2000,” involving 1,700 cit-izens helping to shape a new future. The clean-up of air pollution was just one aspect of theVision 2000 program.

In Cleveland, Ohio, talented professionalsworking in intermediary roles in NGOs, founda-tions, community development corporationsand city planning agencies have built networksof trusting relationships across the barriers ofsector and race.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, the newspa-per, the Charlotte Observer, in partnership withthree local radio stations serving AfricanAmerican neighborhoods, launched a commu-nity journalism initiative called “Taking BackOur Neighborhoods.” Community journalismseeks to report the news in ways that helpengage the public in community life.

Ten Lessons for CommunityBu i lder s

From Peirce and Johnson’s study, we can deter-mine that it is unrealistic to expect elected offi-cials to take the lead in reinventing democracy.The burden for taking the lead toward a new,citizen-based collaborative effort must restlargely with private citizens. Taking that intoconsideration, Peirce and Johnson have devel-oped 10 important lessons for 21st-centurycommunity builders:

Lesson 1 The table gets larger—androunder. The old-style top-down managementstyle doesn’t work anymore. We are in a transi-tion to a new leadership culture where citizensinsist on having a place at the table. Thus, thetable gets larger and rounder, with enoughspace for everyone who wants to participate.

Lesson 2 The only thing more challeng-ing than a crisis may be its absence.Complacency may lead to unattended prob-lems. Smart regions solve problems before theyloom large.

Lesson 3 The agenda gets tougher.Revitalization of downtown areas is easy com-pared to such issues as improving the lives ofpeople caught in cycles of poverty and hope-lessness.

Lesson 4 There is no magical leadershipstructure—just people and relationships. Morethan governance structure, it is relationshipsbetween people that get things done.

Lesson 5 No one’s excused. Universities,professionals, religious communities and themedia are top candidates to enrich the commu-nity-leadership mix.

Lesson 6 Sometimes the old ways stillwork. Individual leaders still can make thingshappen. Respect and welcome civic-mindedleaders who can make a difference.

Lesson 7 Collaboration is messy, frus-trating and indispensable. Today, cities andregions are fumbling toward collaboration,making mistakes, but beginning to form new,inclusive institutions that can solve problemsand strengthen communities.

Lesson 8 Government always needsreforming, but all the reforms need government.

39

Governments are playing new roles as civicbridge-builders. In all its myriad forms anddespite all its inefficiencies and shortcomings,government is still an essential partner for real,lasting, long-term change.

Lesson 9 Communities matter. Despitethe rapid development and acceptance of theInternet, communities still matter. Those com-munities that matter the most are regions, cen-ter cities and neighborhoods.

Lesson 10 It’s never over. No success isever final. No community, no matter how suc-cessful, can ever rest on its accomplishments.

Learn ing to Wor k Together

Restoring hope and building stronger communi-ties takes a lot more than talk. Traditional pub-lic hearings won’t take us where we need to go.Rather, it will take civic will and hard work.Learning to work together across the boundariesand barriers that divide us is the essential lead-ership task of the 21st century.

Community building is not a passive activ-ity. The democratic process guarantees that weall will have the capacity to make a contributionto the leadership of our communities. The chal-lenges before us necessitate that individual cit-izens get involved and make that contribution.

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

40

41

Anderson, Brian C., Chris O’Dea and Beth Barrett“The Comeback of the Big City: Special Report,”The World & I, vol. 13, no. 8, August 1998,pp. 22–41.

Benest, Frank“Reconnecting Citizens with Citizens:What is the Role of Local Government?” Public Manage-ment, vol. 81, February 1999, pp. 6–11.

Bowser, Brandi“WWW.Local Government Com: Opening theWindow to On-Line Democracy,” American City & County, vol. 113, no. 1,January 1998, pp. 32–45.

Briand, Michael K.“Five Principles for a Community that Works,”National Civic Review, vol. 87, no. 3, Fall 1998,pp. 237–251.

Chandler, James A. and Terry Nichols Clark“Local Government,” Encyclopedia of Democracy,Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1995,pp. 767–773.

City of Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Rail RoadCompany, 24 Iowa 455 (1868) Judge John F.Dillon’s famous opinion has come to be known as“Dillon’s Rule,” in which he identified the state leg-islature as the sovereign power, and reiterated thesubordinate status of local government to thestate.

Cortes, Michael“Public Policy Partnerships Between Universitiesand Communities,” National Civic Review, vol. 87,no. 2, Summer 1998, pp. 163–168.

DeSantis,Victor“Council-Manager Relations at the Crossroads,”Public Management, vol. 80, no. 7, July 1998, pp.10–15.

Dodge,William R.Regional Excellence: Governing Together to Compete Globally and Flourish Locally.Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities,1996.

Duhl, Leonard J. et al.“A Dialogue on Healthy Communities: Past,Present and Future,”National Civic Review, vol. 87,no. 4,Winter 1998. pp. 283–293.

B i b l i o g r a p h y

Fur ther Read ings on Democr a t i c Loca l

Government

Ehrenhalt,AlanDemocracy in the Mirror : Politics, Reform,and Reality in Grassroots America. Washington, D.C.:Congressional Quarterly, 1998.

Flower, Joe“A Toolkit for Building a Healthy City,”National Civic Review, vol. 87, no. 4,Winter 1998, pp. 293–310.

Hansell,William H., Jr.“A Common Vision for the Future:The Role of Local Government and Citizens in theDemocratic Process,” National Civic Review,vol. 85, no. 3, Fall 1996.

Hefner, Robert W.“Civil Society: Cultural Possibility of a ModernIdeal,” Society, vol. 35, no. 3, March/April 1998,pp. 16–27.

Henton, Douglas, John Melville and Kimberly WaleshGrassroots Leaders for a New Economy: How Civic Entrepreneurs Are Building ProsperousCommunities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,1997.

International City/County ManagementAssociation (ICMA)The Municipal Yearbook, 1998.Washington, D.C.:ICMA,1998.

Kellar, Elizabeth K.“Smart Communities of the Future,” PublicManagement, vol. 80, no. 9, September 1998,pp. 4–9.

Kretzmann, John and John McKnightBuilding Community from the Inside Out: A PathToward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets.Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and PolicyResearch, Northwestern University, 1993.

Read the “Introduction” to Building Communityfrom the Inside Out at: http://www.nwu.edu/IPR/publications/Introd.building.html

Kretzmann, John et al.A Guide to Creating a Neighborhood InformationExchange: Building Communities by Connecting LocalSkills and Knowledge. Evanston, IL: Institute forPolicy Research, Northwestern University, 1998.

Leighninger, Matt and Martha McCoy“Mobilizing Citizens: Study Circles Offer a NewApproach to Citizenship,” National Civic Review,vol. 87, no. 2, Summer 1998, pp.183–189.

Luke, Jeffrey S.Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an InterconnectedWorld. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Moe, Richard and Carter WilkieChanging Places, Rebuilding Community in the Age ofSprawl. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1997.

Peirce, Neal and Curtis JohnsonBoundary Crossers: Community Leadership for aGlobal Age. College Park, MD: Academy ofLeadership Press, 1997.

Schorr, LisbethStrengthening Families and Neighborhoods to Rebuild America. New York, Doubleday, 1997.

Stern, EmilyState of America’s Cities:The Fifteenth Annual OpinionSurvey of Municipal Elected Officials. Washington,D.C.: National League of Cities, 1998.

Read a summary of the report at:http://www.nlc.org/presopin.htm

Svara, James H.“The Shifting Boundary Between Elected Officialsand City Managers in Large Council-ManagerCities,” Public Administration Review, vol. 59, no. 1,January 1999, pp. 44–53.

Tocqueville,Alexis deDemocracy in America. Edited by Richard D.Heffner. New York: Penguin Books, 1956.

42

Wade, Beth “May I Speak with the Manager,” American City & County, vol. 113, no. 11, October 1998,pp. 24–36.

Wallis,Allan, Jarle P. Crocker and Bill Schechter“Social Capital and Community Building: PartOne,” National Civic Review, vol. 87, no. 3, Fall 1998, pp. 253–271.

Wallis,Allan“Social Capital and Community Building: Part Two,”National Civic Review, vol. 87, no. 4,Winter 1998,pp. 317–336.

Watson, Douglas J., ed.Innovative Governments: Creative Approaches to Local Problems. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997.

Wolfe,Alan“Developing Civil Society: Can the WorkplaceReplace Bowling?” The Responsive Community,vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1998, pp. 41–47.

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

43

44

Please note that USIA assumes no responsibility for the

content and availability of those non-USIA resources list-

ed below, which reside solely with the providers:

Alliance for National Renewal (ANR)

http://www.ncl.org/anr/

The Alliance for National Renewal (ANR) is acoalition of over 200 national and local organiza-tions dedicated to the principles of communityrenewal.

Alliance for Redesigning Government

http://www.alliance.napawash.org/alliance/index.html

The Alliance for Redesigning Government is thecenter of a national network and clearinghouse for state, local and federal innovators; nonprofit and corporate leaders; and scholars who advocateperformance-based, results-driven governance.

Asset-Based Community Development Institute

http://www.nwu.edu/IPR/abcd.html#A

Established at Northwestern University’s Institutefor Policy Research, Asset-Based Community

Development Institute has been the basis for theproduction of resources and tools for communitybuilders, helping them identify, nurture and mobi-lize neighborhood assets.

Center for Creative Leadership

http://www.ccl.org/

An international, nonprofit educational institution,the Center for Creative Leadership develops mod-els of managerial practice.

The Change Project: Healthy Cities/HealthyCommunities

http://www.well.com/user/bbear/hc_articles.html

Articles on building healthy cities and communities.

The Citistates Group

http://www.citistates.com/

The Citistates Group is a network of journalists,speakers and consultants who believe that successful metropolitan regions are today’s key to economic competitiveness and sustainable communities.

I n t e r n e t S i t e s

I n ter net S i tes on Democr a t i c Loca l Government

Civic Practices Network (CPN)

http://www.cpn.org/

CPN is a collaborative and nonpartisan projectdedicated to bringing practical tools for publicproblem solving into community and institutionalsettings across America, by developing newapproaches that enhance citizens’ roles in activepublic problem solving and responsible democraticdeliberation.

CivicSource HomePage

http://civicsource.org

CivicSource seeks to serve the public/civic leader-ship community by linking individuals, communities,businesses, organizations, scholars and programswith the resources to meet the needs of a newcentury of civic activism and “transforming leader-ship.”

Common Cause

http://www.commoncause.org/

Common Cause is a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen’s lobbying organization promoting open,honest and accountable government.

Institute of Government

http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/

The Institute of Government, based at theUniversity of North Carolina, is the largest andmost diversified university-based local governmenttraining, consulting and research organization in the United States.

The International City/County ManagementAssociation (ICMA)

http://www.icma.org/

ICMA represents appointed managers and administrators in local governments throughoutthe world.

International Local Government Homepage

http://world.localgov.org/

A collection of community web pages from localgovernments around the world.

Library of Congress’ State and LocalGovernment Websites

http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/state/stategov.html

The Library of Congress’ Internet Resource pagefor state and local government websites.

Local Government Institute (LGI)

http://www.lgi.org/

An independent, nonprofit organization dedicatedto improving the quality of local government.

National Association for Community Leadership

http://www.communityleadership.org./

The National Association for CommunityLeadership is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nurturing leadership in communities through-out the United States and internationally.

The National Association of Counties (NACo)

http://www.naco.org/

NACo acts as a liaison with other levels of gov-ernment, works to improve public understandingof counties, serves as a national advocate forcounties and provides them with resources tohelp them find innovative methods to meet thechallenges they face.

National Civic League (NCL)

http://www.ncl.org/ncl/index.htm

National Civic League’s mission is to strengthencitizen democracy by transforming democraticinstitutions, by working directly with communitiesto foster cross-sector collaboration and grassrootsproblem solving.

45

The National Community Building Network

http://www.ncbn.org/welcome.shtml

The National Community Building Network is analliance of locally driven urban initiatives workingto reduce poverty and create social and economicopportunity through comprehensive community-building strategies.

National Conference of State Legislatures

http://www.ncsl.org/index.htm

The National Conference of State Legislaturesconsists of comprehensive information, researchon critical state issues, informative publications,provocative meetings and seminars, an unparal-leled legislative information database, a voice inWashington, D.C., and an expert staff to assist legislators and staff in solving difficult problems.

National League of Cities (NLC)

http://www.nlc.org/

The National League of Cities is the country’slargest and most representative organization serving municipal governments.Through NLC,mayors and city council members join together to establish unified policy positions, advocate these policies forcefully and share information that strengthens municipal government through-out the nation.

Pew Partnership

http://www.pew-partnership.org/

The Pew Partnership is a civic research organi-zation whose mission is to document and dis-seminate cutting-edge community solutions.ThePartnership collaborates with local and nationalpartners to empower diverse leadership foraction, catalyze broad-based community partner-ships to solve problems and research successfulcommunity solutions and civic practices.

Sister Cities, International

http://www.sister-cities.org/

The national membership organization for sistercity, county and state programs in the UnitedStates. Sister Cities International is the officialagency which links communities from the UnitedStates with communities worldwide.

U.S. Conference of Mayors

http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/

The United States Conference of Mayors is theofficial nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more.There are about1,050 such cities in the United States today.Conference of Mayors members speak with aunited voice on matters pertaining to organiza-tional policies and goals. Individually, each member-mayor contributes to development of nationalurban policy through service on one or more ofthe organization’s 10 standing committees.

Issues of Democracy, USIA Electronic Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 1999

46

D e m o c r a c yi s s u e s o f

E L E C T R O N I C J O U R N A L S O F T H E U . S . I N F O R M A T I O N A G E N C Y

V O L U M E 4 N U M B E R 1A P R I L 1 9 9 9

D E M O C R A T I C

L O C A L

G O V E R N M E N T