Owen McShane on Super City

Owen McShane can be relied upon to poo-poo the MUL, and generally challenge much of the planning effort seen in and around Auckland. He regularly writes, as Director, for the Centre for Resource Management Studies. I sometimes get and read the emails. This one, I wanted to share. The rest of this blog is an extract from Owen McShane. In it he refers to his correspondence with Wendell Cox about what's happening in Auckland:

"...The Political Outcomes of Large Amalgamations - Owen McShane.

I asked my friend and colleague, Wendell Cox, an international expert on local government and governance, if large scale amalgamations were typically driven from the left or the right. Here in Auckland we have the strange situation where the proposed Auckland Super-City was first driven by the centre left, but has now been adopted by the centre right.

Wendell Cox replied:
"...Regrettably the right and left are of virtually equal distatefulness on the issue. In Toronto, it was a right wing government trying to kill a left wing local government and merge it with more conservative governments, hoping to move things to the right (and get rid of a socialist mayor for whom they had particular dislike, and for whom I worked to try to stop the amalgamation). In the US, much of the consolidation movement ... so far getting nowhere (there must be a God) ... is pushed by the elitist left, with the exception of Indiana (our latest victory I might way), where it is a highly regarded Republican governor who is so badly advised on the issue that it is not funny. Often you will find the most vocal proponents of these policies are central city business organizations and central city leftist elites. Then, there are always the misled rightists who think that larger governments will employ fewer people per capita, not realizing that the larger the government the more personnel it needs and trade unions become even more powerful. As I like to say, the only economies of scale in government consolidation are for lobbyists.

Here are my main reports on the issue

Toronto
http://www.publicpurpose.com/tor-demo.htm
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00318-the-toronto-megacity-destroying-community-great-cost

Pennsylvania.
http://psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdf

New York.
http://www.natat.org/documents/government_efficiency.pdf

Indiana
http://indianatownshipassoc.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,7/Itemid,/
I then asked Wendell whether the end result of such amalgamations was a shift to the left or to the right.

Wendell Cox replied:
"...You can bet that the left always wins. The left is better at power and governance (not in terms of quality but in terms of control) and thus routinely takes over the reigns of power. That much power should not be available in a municipal government. Bureaucrats tend to be elitist and generally more left wing, so the advice the councilors and the mayor receives will be more to the left. Democracy is diluted. Taxes are raised from a larger base and spending goes up... not just on personnel.

"Here is my commentary published by the "National Post" on the 10th anniversary of the Toronto merger. Interestingly, there was not a single letter to the editor posted in response... at that point Toronto was having severe budget difficulties."

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=790bcc66-f18a-4611-a8c2-11f2ff744c23&p=1

However, there is still room to get the best of all worlds out of the reform by ensuring the Super City and its Mayor focus on regional infrastructure, and by boosting the powers of the twenty or so "boroughs" of say sixty to seventy thousand population. Please – no "community boards"; there is no such things as "the community". And let the new Environmental Monitoring Agency write the environmental standards for the RMA plans.

These new "borough councils" could then do the jobs such truly local councils do best and most efficiently. And their might be a balanced distribution of political power through the region.

We just have to get the right horses for the right courses...." (End of quote from Owen McShane)

So. Interesting isn't it. All depends on who gets elected...

The Story of Toronto's Amalgamation

Here are a couple of great pieces of writing. I found them on the net - as you do - and am sharing them here, plus links to the rest of the articles....

"Toronto's Struggle Against Amalgamation
It is an unwritten code of conduct for big-city life: avoid speaking to strangers on the public transit system - and if talking to a friend, keep it down, please. So ingrained is that protocol that when a group of Toronto teenagers started talking loudly on the Gerrard streetcar one late-February afternoon, the discomfort among other passengers was almost palpable. It was only heightened when one of the kids, a long-haired girl in a green bomber jacket, actually addressed an older stranger. "How are you going to vote on megacity? You gotta vote No, man," she remarked, unbidden. Before he could respond, another teen piped in: "I dunno. It's gonna happen anyway - Scarborough's going to get sucked up by Toronto. Scarborough's so small." The
stranger, getting a word in edgewise, pointed out that Scarborough and Toronto
are, in fact, about the same size. "Really?" said the second teen, her nose-ring
twitching with curiosity. "I dunno, around my subway station, Kennedy - " "That
station sucks," interjected Teen No. 1. "Yeah," continued Teen No. 2. "Anyway,
around there, it's pretty small."

For once, strangers are talking to one another in Toronto. And what's got them talking - even the teenagers - is municipal politics, something Torontonians usually find so unenthralling that only about a third of them vote in civic elections. But in Toronto - that somewhat arrogant metropolis the rest of the country loves to hate - these are unusual times. The city is in the grip of Mega-Madness, and a rivetting drama is being played out on the civic stage. To the provincial Conservatives and their supporters, it is a tale of solid municipal policy and sound fiscal management. But to many Torontonians, who fear that the province's reforms will destroy their city, it has taken on the proportions of a horror movie - Megacity: The Tory Monster that Ate Toronto....

You can read the rest at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011182 Here's another good read:

"Discredited Ideas/Utopian Ideals drive municipal amalgamations
Toronto, March 20, 2001 — Amalgamations forced on municipalities by provincial
governments are the product of flawed nineteenth-century thinking and a bureaucratic urge for centralized control, says a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary published today. What’s more, says the study, smaller and more flexible jurisdictions can often deliver services to residents at lower cost, throwing in doubt the financial assumptions typically used to defend amalgamations.

The new study, “Local Government Amalgamations: Discredited Nineteenth-Century Ideals Alive in the Twenty-First,” argues that some provincial governments have been guided by an intellectual fashion of the nineteenth century: an apparently unshakable faith in monolithic organizations and central control. The study’s author, Robert L. Bish, Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, explains that this flawed thinking is unlikely to suit the rapid change and the need for institutional adaptability that will characterize the twenty-first century. Meanwhile, large and centralized governments will be further removed from their voters, and less able to respond effectively to local needs and choices.

Aside from the intellectual dubiousness of amalgamation projects, says Bish, an
extensive review of scholarly research since the 1960s demonstrates that the background assumption that smaller and more numerous jurisdictions provide services at high cost is typically wrong. Small municipalities contract for services with their neighbors, private suppliers, or other providers when it is cost effective to do so, and provide services themselves when that is less costly. In each case, the decision is based on what is technically efficient in specific lines of activity and depends on close familiarity with local conditions. Because distant mega-councils have less information on which to base decisions than do councils closer to their voters, the cost savings that provinces hope to deliver through amalgamation often prove illusory, and services are thus less likely to match voters’ wants and willingness to pay.

The key, argues Bish, is local flexibility. Metropolitan areas with numerous local
governments and a variety of production arrangements can respond to local needs at less cost than monolithic amalgamations. The superior performance of such “polycentric” structures stems from competition among governments — and from their service arrangements with outside organizations of various scales, including cooperation in specific tasks with neighboring governments. Decentralization among local governments is no hindrance to economic growth, says Bish: some of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas are also among the most governmentally fragmented. Amalgamation, on the other hand, tends to eliminate the very characteristics of local government that are critical to successful low cost operations....

Check out the full Bish report (starts pg 7): http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdf

Wendell Cox on government amalgamation & merger

Didn't think I'd be quoting from old Wendell Cox - especially with his love of motorways and dislike of public transport. But here's what he has to say about local government amalgamation in the US and Canada....

..."Executive Summary
· Provincial governments in Canada have actively promoted municipal amalgamations with the
claim that overall costs per capita for taxpayers are lower with larger urban government units.
· An analysis of US Census data indicates the reverse, that higher expenditures per capita are
generally associated with larger municipal units and that consolidated governments are more
costly than governments typified by multiple government units.
· Many of the world’s largest and most successful urban areas have numerous local government
units. For example, the Paris area has more than 1,300 municipal governments and the Tokyo
area has more than 225.

Larger Cities are not More Efficient Cities
While people may generally like smaller municipal jurisdictions, they pay no higher price
for them. The cost efficiency justification for amalgamation rests on a foundation less
stable than a transitional Nunavut permafrost. Larger units of government do not cost
less, they cost more. Of course, the studies commissioned by ministries and politicians
bent on consolidation always produce the required “bigger is better” results. The agendaarmed
consultants proceed from their offices and count the people that they would make
redundant if they were in charge and plan on sending back the excess personal
computers. But, of course, they are never put in charge, the elimination of redundancies
never comes, and more equipment is purchased. The real purpose of their reports is
simply to produce a smoke screen thick enough that it does not dissipate before the final
bill receives assent.

Regrettably, what none of the advocates of consolidation do is to look at the actual data.
Research in the United States illustrates the point. There are 10 city-county consolidated
governments in the United States that have, at one point or another, had more than
500,000 residents. The most famous is the city of New York, composed of five boroughs
and, as in Toronto, where their consolidation was forced upon local residents by the
legislature. Local government expenditures per capita in the consolidated city of New
York are 34 percent higher than elsewhere in the state. It might be expected that New
York, as the largest consolidated government in the United States, would have government expenditures per capita that are among the lowest. But not so, they are among the highest.

Successful Metropolitan Areas have Many Local Governments
Some of the world’s most successful metropolitan areas have highly fragmented
government. Paris has seven regional governments and more than 1,300 municipal
governments. Yet Paris has developed a governance structure that effectively delivers
quality public services throughout and regional services that would be the pride of any area. Tokyo, the world’s largest metropolitan area, has more than 225 municipalities that
stretch through the parts of four provinces. The Milan area has more than 150 cities.
The best guarantee of effective local government is a populace with a strong stake in its
performance. In a smaller jurisdiction, the stake of the individual citizen or neighborhood
group can provide an important counterbalance to interests that would prefer to siphon off
the resources of local government to their own advantage. Larger governments are
harder for the citizenry to control.

It is clear that the most efficient city size is not large, but is rather no larger than middle-sized.
Ontario’s Harris government got it wrong – all wrong. If it had been studying the
evidence, it might have made 20 cities out of six. But it would not have thrown everything
together in a Megacity that can only, in the long run, make things worse for the average
citizen. Manitoba and Nova Scotia municipal amalgamations also got it wrong. Québec
has a chance to get it right....

You can see this, plus more at: http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB%2022%20Reassessing%20Local%20Government%20Amalgamation%20FEB%2004.pdf