Gregoire's encouraging push toward a new localism
Disaggregating the mushy amalgam of federal, state, and local programs is the hot new idea in political reform, with appeals to the left and right. It's encouraging to see the governor promoting this kind of divestment.
Gov. Gregoire's bombshell announcements last week, concerning education (consolidate all those state boards and departments) and ferries (create a local taxing district to supplement state funds), are part of a national trend to push state services and control down to local levels. This goes by the name "realignment" and recalls old battles about "federalism," meaning pushing federal dollars and programs back to state and local levels, with fewer strings attached.
We might start getting used to the idea, and looking for the good aspects of it. The basic proposal goes this way. The state can't afford to fund certain services, such as the University of Washington, as before. Moreover, partisan bickering in the Legislature and Tim Eyman initiatives have hamstrung the state. So the state will give the UW (or analogous entites like ferries) much greater autonomy and taxing (or tuition-setting) authority. The last part of the bargain is that the local entity needs to be a coherent regional body with a broad enough tax base to work.
This is basically what the new British Prime Minister David Cameron has been proposing, mixing in some proposals to shift the burden slightly toward the affluent. It isn't just austerity; it's about local groups taking up the burden, doing things in more tailored ways, and getting out from under national bureaucracies. There's a good summary of this "Big Society" idea in an essay in the Financial Times, headlined, "Britain's big gamble puts the citizens at the wheel."
In Britain, the rubber is really hitting the road in this experiment in a revived localism. For instance, how well are libraries coping with the formula of diminished budgets and lots more volunteers? An article in the Guardian found lots of bumps in this road:
"The threat to hundreds of libraries is being recast as an opportunity to bring in volunteers, and finally provide concrete examples of how the 'big society' may work in practice – and, though any library is better than none at all, you have to wonder about what will transpire. How volunteers will convincingly step into the space left by trained librarians, or maintain six-day-a-week opening, remains unclear (witness a recent headline from the Swindon Advertiser: 'Library hours cut due to lack of volunteers'). Moreover, when you spend time in a facility as ambitious as the one in Eastfield, one thought becomes inescapable: there is simply no way that unpaid staff could run it satisfactorily."
Closer to home, you might enjoy reading an essay by Seattle business leader Nick Hanauer and Seattle author Eric Liu in Democracy Journal. They propose disaggregating the "mushy amalgam" of federal and local programs. They would strengthen the federal level by having it set bolder goals and investing to achieve them. At the local level, there would be less government, more flexibility, more toolkits:
"Our bumper sticker is that government should do more what, less how: a stronger hand in setting great national goals and purposes; a lighter touch in how we reach those goals. Government should be less a service provider and more a tool creator; less wielder of stick than of carrot; less the parent than the coach; less the vending machine than the toolkit for civic action. A more what/less how government should set the bar high and invest fully in a great springboard — then let people, through dedication and practice, compete to get over the bar."
I read the Hanauer/Liu proposal as a kind of venture-capital version of government. The venture capitalist puts up the money for game-changing companies, sits on the board, closely monitors the results, bails early on failures, and makes sure there is an excellent CEO and team running the venture. A good example is the Race to the Top approach of Education Secretary Arne Duncan: clear goals, real money, and real local competition with lots of room for variety.
Another attraction of this approach is that it transcends the partisan divides and doesn't represent a clear win for conservatives or liberals. It has conservative elements, notably the Tory-Burkean valuation of creative, distinctive localism. It has liberal elements in its call to set more ambitious national goals, to revitalize self-government, and to pull cities away from dependency on rural-dominated legislatures.
Put another way, these proposals disturb the status quo and get both sides angry. On the governor's ferry-district proposal, for instance, many were quick to declare it D.O.A. The Seattle Times editorial page has already pounced, saying that the ferry system needs to remain a part of a state responsibility, or just raise fares more and tighten the belts. Local legislators, who would have to break the bad tax news to their constituents (rather than just keep blaming Eyman for their long commuter lines), are also opposed. Unfortunately for the governor's politics, there are so many Puget Sound counties affected that they constitute a majority in the Legislature.
A thoughtful article on California Gov. Jerry Brown's proposals for "realignment" makes further objections to this approach. If the state is broke, the localities are in even worse shape:
"Facing a monstrous deficit, the state has every incentive to dump new burdens onto local governments while shorting our ability to pay for them. Plainly put, if the state can't provide these services without running up $28 billion in red ink, what makes anyone think local governments will be able to without running up huge deficits as well? Indeed, any realignment plan must protect local government against becoming a net revenue loser. Otherwise, it runs the risk of breaking the financial backs of already strapped counties and cities."
To this line of opposition, I would make two counter-arguments. One is that bucking things down to the local level means less expensive universalizing of the benefits. To get things like a state convention center for Seattle past the Legislature meant giving every county in the state the taxing authority to do the same. The result is a vast array of small such centers, far more than needed. The other point is that once things are more localized, the taxpayers tend to have more trust and the issues seem less partisan.
A final point in favor of this divestment strategy is that pushing important functions down to the regional level can be a spur to the creation of strong regional entities. This boost for metro regions is the key component of the Brookings Institution's recipe for urban revitalization. In that spirit, let us imagine that the governor's ferry proposal gets combined with plans to save Puget Sound (which also needs a local taxing district) and maybe even Sound Transit.
You can fondly imagine that the state legislature will some day find the political will and the money to do this in a worthy way. Enjoy your delusions! Or you can conclude, as I do, that it will have to be a regional, sub-state-level approach.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 6:11 a.m. Inappropriate
The downside to a regional approach are the problems that occur when the regions can't work together and coordinate. The regional transportation planning organizations are an example of this. There is no express bus or commuter rail from Oly to Seattle. That is absurd. Why? Because the two cities are in different RTPOs that can't seem to coordinate one bus line. That lack of coordination has real impacts on I-5 traffic. So while it sounds fine at the surface to push services to local/regional governments and organizations there is the reality that no local entity is an "island".
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 7:01 a.m. Inappropriate
I wonder if the new localism will include the ability to not be taxed for issues like the King County foot ferry that do not involve public health and safety?
Unfortunately, volunteers in public service usually run into opposition from unions who will see it as a threat and a violation of their contracts.
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 7:49 a.m. Inappropriate
Today, in King County (just one example), thanks to every community wanting more direct control of governmental activities (regulation, taxation, elections, etc.) we now have a plethera of Cities that control almost all of the developable land in the County....and then some. This decentralization has resulted in higher costs for government services (a Planning Director every 4 miles)and local elections of citizens that usually have a single local purpose to be push. The big picture is gone.
In my opinion, it would be useful and cost effetive to survey the Counties and Cities and see if there are areas and services that could be combined to keep costs down. One major factor to reconsider is the consolidation of political boundaries that presently create a maze of legal barriers.
Just as an exercise, try to draw all the political boundaries in your own community and you will see that it is a real mess. I'm talking about,not just municipal and county lines, but fire districts, school districts, water and sewer districts, Port Authorities, Transportation districts, State controlled lands, library districts and we should not forget, political election districts at all levels of government.
Believe me, it's a master's degree at least!
Dumping more rsponsibilities on all of this, will just add to the already confusing mess and generate local backlash that will be taken out on more regional services.
In our ever-dividing communities, who want their own piece of the action, they will be caught in a blind canyon of increased required responsibilities and balancing their budgets. Before we jump into this dumping activity, we all should try, first, to simplify our city/County/State and Special Districts practices and see what efficiencies shine through. Then move forward on those changes that clearly improve the operation of government services for the greatest number of people, at the least possible expense, over the longest period of time.
Otherwise, Be careful what you wish for!
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 9:22 a.m. Inappropriate
This theory of governance was tried - the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority. Nick Hanauer put tens of thousands of dollars into promoting that 2002 effort. What were the results? $200 million in tax revenue confiscated and then completely wasted.
Another example is Sound Transit. It is completely unaccountable to people. The political appointees running it are imposing the most abusive taxing scheme imaginable. They already have pledged to collect scores of billions of dollars of new local taxes to long-term bonds, and in most peer metro regions there is no need for any new regressive local taxing for light rail.
"Local control" is the catchword for how transit is financed here. It is set up in a punishing manner. The average family here now pays about $455 every year in new direct taxes for transit (Metro and ST), and that amount will increase every year for decades. In Portland the average family pays $0 direct taxes for transit, and they have good bus and train service, with even a higher percentage of commuters using transit.
Deb Eddy sponsored a bill in 2009 creating new local Transportation Benefit District tax options for cities. There will be some kind of tax hike ballot measure for that this fall (car tabs hike, sales tax hike, tolls and/or property tax hike). No taxpayer protection provisions are in that law, no deliverables are required, no "cost vs. benefit" analysis is needed, etc.
At this point we have the second-most regressive state and local taxing regimen in the country (behind Chicago). Property values are dropping like a rock, and private sector jobs are drying up. I get that the government managers like this idea of lots of new taxes paid by people and families, but how about considering MORE accountability for the tax promoters, not less?
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 10:15 a.m. Inappropriate
The nice thing about local control is the acountability in the produce aisle at Safeway. Or at the PTA meeting, the Gas Station or while you are mowing your lawn. Cooperative efforts on a regional basis are certain worthwhile and can be economically sound and benefitical for all parties. The problem starts when certain regional entities feel it necessary to impose their beliefs and regulations on those who are relatively powerless to defend themselves from heavy handed elected officials and bureaucrats.
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 12:48 p.m. Inappropriate
As a local official, I firmly believe in grass roots government. When done right, it shines in comparison to more distantly representative governance.
Unfortunately, it isn't always done right. Witness Tieton's 97 leaks in its dilapidated water main in a single winter storm a few years back. Local officials thought it was doing right by never raising water rates. In a democracy, voters always have the option of flawed thinking.
My point is that the dispersal of responsibilities for such things as public health and safety and education, opens opportunities for local jurisdictions to fail, sometimes with catastrophic results for the state's citizens. Strategic thinking, professionalism, efficiency, transparency, expertise... all are harder to come by as the constituencies shrink. Just be ready for the consequences of local control.
Also, my experience in Governor Gregoire's government is that she works very much in a hierarchical model. I haven't seen a shred of an inclination to let power flow down her departmental pyramids. Offloading red ink and failed programs does not a "realignment" make.
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 2:01 p.m. Inappropriate
Case in point for grayreigns post is the current plan for the AWV. Regardless of the attributes of the tunnel/surface option for creating a downtown park, the fact is that it drastically reduces vehicle capacities, access to Ballard and West Seattle and takes away the region’s only bypass for downtown. Local special interests and Gov. Gregoire are spending and extra 2+ billion dollars on a transportation project that increases congestion and gridlock for the rest of the region.
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 3:08 p.m. Inappropriate
The cynic in me believes that the real motive in pushing responsibility for services down to the local level - by David Cameron, Governor's Brown and Gregoire, and others - is to make local officials take the heat for reducing services. Resistance to raising taxes is likely to be just as strong at the local level with few exceptions. When that fails then it will be county executives and councils, city mayors and councils who will take the blame for cutting services.
That said, the Great Recession is creating a unique opportunity to rethink not just what level of government should be responsible for delivering what services, but more importantly what services government should and can afford to provide.
Government and governing is messy business.
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 6:58 p.m. Inappropriate
I like the idea for wants of localities, but be clear in retaining state responsibility for needs of the state.
Schools, roads, public safety, state-wide standards; there are some very basic levels that the state can make the case for asking for revenue, but not while it is in the business of dispensing programs that are unevenly valued by the locals.
I think that parting out sections of the state highway system, like the ferry system, is just not ready to be done, not while the state is in the business of continuing tax loopholes at the expense of state obligations, such as education.
What I think we will see is the state get out of the business of controling localities with purse strings from an empty purse. We will get a few things thrown over the fence to locals that are wants (local infrastructure) with the means to allow locals to tax themselves. Unfortunately there will be plenty of localities that neither have the tax base or political will to enact some of these programs.
This is the timely death of "One Washington", and the birth of local administration of some programs those only thse that "have" have the means to do.
Posted Sat, Jan 15, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Right, localism. Yakima County is being forced to change it's Comprehensive Plan to please the overlords of the Eastern Wa Growth Management Hearing Board.
The counties are told to develop the plan that they want, but......... If it does not please the Growth Board the county is forced to make changes. Same thing happened to Kittitas County. Development in Yakima County is so restricted that new development is severely restricted. Wind power development in Klicikitat and Kittitas counties, nothing in Yakima.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.