Bridging the City-Suburb Divide: States and the Politics of Regional Cooperation

Abstract

This article explores the politics of regional cooperation in Houston and in Los Angeles, focusing in particular on the role of the state in facilitating or inhibiting metropolitan-wide approaches to urban problems. In both California and Texas, the state can play a significant role in facilitating regional cooperation. However, important limits exist on the extent to which this happens. While generous annexation rules have facilitated regionalism in Houston, these rules are themselves only as strong as the political consensus to use and maintain them. Similarly, regional agencies in Los Angeles have been reluctant to fully utilize their powers in the face of strong political opposition from local governments. Finally, in both Houston and Los Angeles regionalism is more often defined in terms of systems maintenance functions rather than lifestyle functions. The use of statelevel rules to promote regionalism may suffer from the same political liabilities as earlier attempts to form regional governments.From "soccer moms" to Gore's "Livability Agenda," the political significance of suburbia has dominated much of the news reporting and political commentary of the last several election cycles. As the percentage of the United States population living in suburbs has grown from a quarter of the population in 1950 to the finding of the 1990 census that almost half of Americans live in suburbs, political analysts have increasingly concerned themselves with the political implications of suburban growth. With phrases like "the secession of the successful" and "the balkanization of America," researchers have painted an increasingly gloomy portrait of a nation divided between decaying inner cities plagued by poverty and unemployment, and fortress suburbs engaged in "defensive localism"-the attempt to maintain their own standard of living while avoiding encroaching social problems (Frey, 1996; Reich, 1991;Weir, 1995). For those interested in the future of American cities, an increasingly important question is how to bridge the political boundaries that separate city and suburban communities.

When Boeing Landed in Chicago: Lessons for Regional Economic Development

“…Like previous waves of scholar ship on regionalism, New Regionalism calls for increased regional cooperation. Unlike earlier State and Local Government Review scholarship, the New Regionalists frequently emphasize economic competitiveness in their arguments for regional reform (Frisken and Norris 2001;Gainsborough 2001). In particular, globalization is said to have exposed businesses to unprecedented competitive threats (Wallis 1996).…”

Obstacles to Regional Housing Solutions: A Comparison of Four Metropolitan Areas

“…In most cases, regionalism tends to be specific to a particular policy domain. For example, regional transportation, water, and solid waste planning and management are common in many areas of the country (Gainsborough, 2001; Lindstrom, 1998; Nunn & Rosentraub, 1997). The promise of regionalism, however, lies in a more comprehensive approach to metropolitan issues.…”

Shaping Urban Form without Zoning: Investigating Three Neighbourhoods in Houston

“…Recent studies address Houston from different perspectives such as urban geography (Kirby & Lynch, 1987;Vojnovic, 2003), political science (Gainsborough, 2001), public policy (Fisher, 1989), and law and economics (Berry, 2001). Houston is often portrayed as an archetype-free enterprise, capitalist, or laissez-faire city (Lin, 1995;Feagin, 1998;Lamare, 1998).…”