VOL. 46, NO.2 THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

CITY-COUNTY CONSOLIDATION IN THE UNITED STATES

By S. J. MAKIELSKI, JR.

The author is Associate Professor of Govern­ volved. The area over which the city has And, until this century, state control over ment and Foreign Affairs and Research Asso­ jurisdiction remains unchanged under local affairs was frequently detailed in the ciate in the Institute of Government, University separation, while that of the county is re­ extreme. Further, the existence of of Virginia. duced. Under consolidation, one govern­ powerfu I state political party In the search for a solution to the ment becomes responsible for exercising organizations often made it possible for problems that increasingly plague local all or most governmental powers for the state legislators to ignore the wishes of a government in the United States, one of area formerly included under both the locality if a workable political Jldeal" the more persistent proposals is to merge city and the county and replaces both the could be engineered through important city and county governments to achieve city and county governments. In the case party officials. one area-wide form of government. City­ of city-county separation, the geographic Given these conditions, it is not sur­ county consolidation, or IImerger" as it is area is divided among two units of gov­ prising that several significant city-county frequently called, has not had an impres­ ernment; under merger the area is consolidations occurred during the period sive record of successes if viewed from governed by one unified government. of legislative dominance. The first such the perspective of the many years of Thus, in the former case area-wide gov­ consolidation came about when the City strong agitation for it. In recent years, ernment is made more difficult, and in of New Orleans was consolidated with the however, the proponents of city-county the latter it becomes at least theoretically County of Orleans (later to be called the consolidation have won outstanding suc­ a fact. With one unit of government oper­ Parish of Orleans) in 1805. This initial cesses despite the skeptical predictions of ating for the entire city and county area, consolidation was uncontroversial, taking observers. Because of the revived interest the boundaries between the two units are place as it did shortly after the Lou isiana in city-county consolidation, it is useful eliminated, and most or all governmental Territory was acquired by the United to examine what it is, what has happened services are provided for the whole area. States and before there was any fu lIy in the past two centuries, and what the In brief, the impact of city-county con­ organized system of local government. future may hold. solidation is far greater, resulting in a A similar consolidation of Boston and major change in the structure of local Suffolk County took place in 1822, again THE NATURE OF MERGER government where it takes place. by legislative act. At the time of the A certain amount of confusion has al..­ consolidation, Boston was a town, and MERGER BY STATE ACTION ways surrounded the idea of city-county the county and town governing bodies consolidation. Part of this confusion has The history of city-county consoli­ had come to loggerheads over taxation stemmed from viewing city-county con­ dation is separable into two periods, con­ and roads. The Massachusetts legislature, solidation as the same as the separation of forming roughly to the 19th and 20th seeking to resolve the disputes, abolished a city from its surrounding county. Centuries, respectively. During the 19th the county governing body and trans­ Lumping the two types of local govern­ Century city-county consolidation was ferred its functions to the mayor and ment reform together was based on the brought about or attempted by direct ac­ aldermen of Boston, which was simul­ idea that once the city was separated tion of the state legislature, usually with taneously incorporated as a city. from its parent county, it received all the no effort to gain the consent or even the Although in both New Orleans and Bos­ powers that the county had formerly advice of the electorate in the affected ton the respective counties technically exercised within the city's limits, thus, in areas. Although today such a procedure continued their existence, in fact the effect, becoming a city and a county (for might seem high-handed, this approach cities came to perform almost all signifi­ example, the City and County of San was based on solid legal and political cant governmental functions. Francisco) . precedent. It is necessary to keep in mind The same pattern was continued in the The crucial distinction between merger the long-standing doctrine that there is no next city-county consolidation. In 1854, and city-county separation, however, lies legal and constitutionally accepted the Pennsylvania legislature merged the in the respective geograph ic areas in- Jlinherent right to local self-government." City and County of Philadelphia almost

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT / UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA / CHARLOTTESVILLE pCTOBER 15~ 1969 2

completely. Again, technically the county highly significant in proportion to the suburbanization, resulted in the sprawl of and the city continued to exist as sepa­ urban character of the country during the population to a far greater extent than rate legal entities, but the governing body 19th Century. There were few large cities during the previous century, and as state of the county was abolished and its func­ in the contemporary sense, and that so legislatures granted urbanizing counties tions transferred to the city council. This many of these cities were involved in a more powers, the suburban dweller could was, moreover, the most ambitious city­ major governmental reform indicates the avoid the problems of the big city wh ile county consolidation yet attempted, power of the legislature to modify dras­ enjoying a high level of services. since 13 townships, 6 boroughs, and 9 tically the shape of local government. At least in retrospect, the effect on other incorporated districts were also in­ Third, the consolidations took place consolidation is not surprising. Table 2 volved. throughout the entire century, that is, lists the attempts at city-county consoli­ The focus of activity in city-county there were no long spells of "drought" dation that were brought to a vote in merger in the late 19th Century shifted to during which no activity took place, as local referenda and rejected by the voters. the New York area. In a bewildering Table 1 indicates. The Iist of unsuccessfu I efforts, however, series of consolidations, five counties and Fourth, for those proponents of city­ is deceptively short. There were numer­ two cities emerged as one. In 1874, the county consolidation who might look ous other efforts which never got past the City of New York and the County of back longingly to a time when successes necessary constitutional amendment or New York and their two separate govern­ occurred regularly, it must be recalled revision of state statutes. Thus an attempt ments merged. In 1894, the boundaries of that the env'ronment-of local government to merge .the city and county in-tbe the City of Brooklyn were extended to be was far different. The absence of "home Milwaukee area was defeated in the Wis­ coterminous with those of Kings County, rule," the limits on county powers and consin legislature in 1935, and an effort and the two governments were consoli­ resources, thus making city services far in Georgia to consolidate Atlanta and dated in most respects. After bitter parti­ more attractive to suburban residents, DeKalb and Fulton counties failed in san in-fighting, the two cities of Brooklyn and the existence of powerful state party 1937. Even where the state legislature and New York were merged, and with organizations, all created a set of circum­ was not a barrier, the need for consti­ them the counties of Queens and Rich­ stances not duplicated in the 20th Cen­ tutional amendment often posed an insu­ mond. The marriage became official Jan­ tury. perable handicap. In California in 1936 uary 1, 1898. The counties maintained and in Pennsylvania in 1937 amendments some degree of existence through elected MERGER BY REFERENDUM which would have allowed consolidation officials, particularly the judiciary, and in were defeated in statewide referenda. addition a borough system was imposed One of the great victories won by Two observations can be made about on the counties, with each component municipal reformers during the later years the series of unsuccessful attempts. First, unit being a borough as well as county. of the 19th Century and the early de­ despite defeats that occurred with almost The city's complex system of government cades of the 20th was the power of the monotonous regularity, advocates of mer­ was to be the despair of municipal re­ local electorate to make basic decisions ger did not give up. In part th is persis­ formers and mayors for decades to come, about the structure of their local govern­ tence was due to the shift in attention and 70 years after the consolidation the ment. The rebellion against state inter­ from cleaning up individual city govern­ boroughs and counties continue as ves­ ference in the details of local government ments to a growing concern about metro­ tiges of the struggle that shaped the stemmed from the desire to take govern­ politan problems. Many reformers began merged city. ment away from the "politicians" and to recognize that even the most honest, The last city-county consolidation to return it to "the people." One unex­ efficient city government could be frus­ occur under the period of legislative dom­ pected side effect, however, was to make trated in providing a high standard of inance was the merger of the City and the city-county consolidation remarkably dif­ services by a steadily declining tax base, OUTIty of Honolulu he Territorial ficult. City-countV consolidation often re­ the" flight- 01 -the-middle c1ass to lfie legislature in 1907. Like the merger of quired an amendment to the constitution suburbs, and the requ irements of con­ New Orleans and Orleans County over a or state law and a referendum election in temporary public services which demand hundred years before, the Honolulu con­ the participating localities. Both became large geographic areas for maximum effi­ solidation occurred during the process of serious stumbling blocks to merger. In ciency. establishing a pattern of local government addition, other changes influenced the Second, however, despite the strong for the new territory. chances for success. Urbanization, and pressures by "good government" groups There are several notable features about the period of city-county consoli­ TABLE 1 / CITY-COUNTY CONSOLIDATIONS BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION dation by legislative action. First, there were very few unsuccessful attempts. The Units Involved Year major failures were efforts to consolidate

Denver and Arapahoe County in 1889 New Orleans - Orleans County, Louisiana 1805 and Chicago and Cook County in 1899. Boston - Suffolk County, Massachusetts 1821 Clearly, when a state legislature und~r­ Philadelphia - Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania 1854 took the task of achieving merger during New York - New York County, New York 1874 the 19th Century it was usually able to Brooklyn - Kings County, New York 1894 do so. Second, it should be noted that the New York and Brooklyn - Queens and Richmond Counties, New York 1898 mergers were not only numerous, but Honolulu - Honolulu County, Hawaii 1907 3

for city-county consolidation, the record Another merger also grew out of de­ ization helped conclusively in winning the showed that political realities were ex­ feat. In 1962, Nashville and Davidson election. tremely difficult to overcome. Opposition County, Tennessee, voted to merge their Another successfuI merger attempt to consolidation proposals cut across governments, only four years after a simi­ occurred in F lorida in 1967 when the party lines, both in the state legislatures lar proposal had been voted down. The voters of Jacksonville and Duval County and in local referenda. Even vigorous threat of annexation, a sudden rise in approved the complete consolidation of campaigning by "elite" business groups taxes, and the desire to "get" an un­ the city and county. As in most of the and other citizen groups were ineffective popular mayor all contributed to the recent mergers, the Jacksonville merger in swaying the voters or state legislators success. Although vestiges of the county was brought about by a series of "crises," in the vast majority of cases. remained in the form of different uservice which in this case involved the school districts," a plan that had been tried with system, a sudden rise in taxes, and alleged THE SHIFTING BALANCE success in Baton Rouge, the proponents corruption in local government. Like From 1907 when Honolulu and Hono­ of merger had won another major victory. many of the other mergers, the consol i­ lulu County were consolidated to 1947, Subsequently, Virginia took the center dation was made possible by the pro­ there were many attempted but no suc­ of the stage. In 1962, the voters of the vision of separate "service districts" to cessfu I mergers. The 40-year period was City of Virginia Beach and Princess Anne accommodate different levels of service the longest "drought" for the consoli­ County and of the City of South Norfolk demands among city, suburban, and rural dation movement. In. 1947, however, and Norfolk County. approved consoli­ areas. Baton Rouge and the Parish of East dation proposals for their respective In 1969, there was a stunning change Baton Rouge both voted to consolidate areas.' As with the Hampton City mer­ in the pattern of 20th Century mergers. most of their governmental functions, ger, the two latest Virginia mergers pro­ The Indiana General Assembly passed a and to establ ish one governing body for duced completely consolidated cities. law merging Indianapolis and Marion the entire area. Although the Baton Again, as in the earlier instances, annex­ County, thus in effect returning to the Rouge merger was less than complete ation played an important role in influ­ 19th Century pattern of legislative action. since both city and parish maintained encing the voters, although in the case of The consolidation, moreover, was com­ their separate existences, the proponents the consolidation of Virginia Beach, the plete, producing a single mayor, single of merger claimed a major victory, as the existence of a powerful local party organ- council, and consolidated financial ar­ two units of government were interlocked rangements, although provision was made so closely as to be one in most significant 1. Mr. David G. Temple of West Virginia University is currently preparing an exhaustive for special service districts.2 Political respects. work on the mergers in Virginia. I have drawn factors contributed significantly to the Then, only five years later in 1952, a heavily on his research. It should be noted that full-fledged city-county merger took in 1958 the cities of Warwick and Newport 2. I am deeply indebted to Mr. York place in Virginia, when the voters of the News merged, making Tidewater Virginia the Willbern of Indiana University for much of the City of Hampton and Elizabeth City scene of the most extensive local governmental information available on the Indianapolis County approved consolidation of the reform in the nation. merger. two units of government. The county was faced with the threat of repeated annex­ TABLE 2/ CITY-COUNTY MERGER PROPOSALS REJECTED BY THE VOTERS ations, and apparently the voters decided it would be more desirable to throw in Units Involved Date their fortunes with an enlarged city than see themselves "nibbled away" by a suc­ Oakland - Alameda County, California 1921 cession of annexation su its. The signifi­ Butte - Silver Bow County, Montana 1924 cance of the Hampton consolidation lay St. Louis - St. Louis County, Misso\,jd 192ti Portland· Multnomah County, Oregon 1927 in its completeness. The County's iden­ Pittsburgh - Allegheny County, Pennsylvani"a 1929 tity disappeared and the new unit became Several municipalities - Ravalli County, Montana 1932 the City of Hampton. Macon· Bibb County, Georgia 1933 In 1957, a hybrid government was Jacksonville· Duval County, Florida 1935 created which was partly city-county con­ Miami· Dade County, Florida 1948 solidation, partly metropolitan govern­ Newport News· Warwick County· Elizabeth City County, Virginia 1950 ment, and partly an urban county. In that Miami - Dade County, Florida 1953 year, the government of Miami-Dade Nashville - Davidson County, Tennessee 1958 County came into being, with a single Albuquerque· Bernalillo County, New Mexico 1959 governing body for the entire area, but Knoxville - Knox County, Tennessee 1959 Macon - Bibb County, Georgia 1960 with the units of government in the area Durham - Durham County, North Carolina 1961 continuing to function much as they had Richmond - Henrico County, Virginia 1961 before. This compromise approach grew Columbus· Muscogee County, Georgia 1962 out of bitter defeats suffered by the Memphis - Shelby Cllunty, Tennessee 1962 proponents of merger in 1948 and 1953. St. Louis· St. Louis County, Missouri 1962 While there was widespread dissatis­ Chattanooga - Hamilton County, Tennessee 1964 faction with the new government, it has Tampa· Hillsborough County, Florida 1967 survived at the polls. Athens - Clarke County, Georgia 1969 4

merger in this case, since for the first muted, cries for the legislature to take a creases. Today, the electorate appears to time the local governing bodies of the more active role in meeting metropolitan be more sensitive to issues that they have city -and the county, the State legisla­ governmental problems. The tradition of previously ignored. Problems of air and ture, and the governorship were all deferring to strongly expressed local water pollution, traffic, and governmental Republican-dominated and shared the interests is, however, hard to overcome. coordination seem more acute than they common desire to maintain party con­ A second conclusion is that even con­ did some decades ago. Finally, it has been tro\ over the area. sol idation which req uires the approval of argued that in recent years the people are Although the record of successes in the electorate is not a completely hope­ more interested in receiving the services city-county mergers since 1947 is impres­ less goal. Although results have shown they want than with which level of gov­ sive, a comparison between Table 2 and that many such attempts fail, not all will. ernment provides the services. If this is Table 3 shows that at the same time Three factors seem to be at work to pro­ true it may mean that increasingly fewer victories were being won, almost twice as duce a change in the reactions of voters. people will vote against merger simply to many defeats were being suffered. In the First, as suburbs become more urban, preserve the identity of their small subur­ 22-year period beginning in 1947, there they find that their own tax bases come ban community. Certainly it would seem were 8 victories but 15 defeats. And, for under the same kinds of stresses that the logical that a mobile population, changing the entire period since 1907, the ratio of central city feels. Thus, in Nashville and homes frequently, would be less con­ defeats to victories was almost three to Jacksonville, the increase in suburban cerned with the virtues of grass roots one. taxes made the idea of "eGonomies of democracy and mare. concer.ned wit uni­ formly high standards of governmental PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE scale" more palatable than it had been in previous efforts. Second, "crises" do play services. What, then, does the record show? The a role in precipitating favorable votes for From the record, it would be un­ first and most obvious conclusion is that consolidation. The crises generally take realistic to say that city-county consolida­ it was far easier to achieve .city-county the form of the threat of annexation, the tion will occur often in the United States. consolidation through legislative action failure of a major governmental service, It does seem, however, that the last than through the electorate. This, how­ or a rapid increase in the costs of govern­ decade has amply demonstrated that mer­ ever, provides only limited solace for the ment. As an area becomes more intensely gers can take place, and that more will proponents of merger. As already pointed urban, the likelihood of such crises in- certainly occur. out, the circumstances surrounding the great mergers of the 19th Century were specific to that time, and the Indianapolis TABLE 3/ SUCCESSFUL CITY-COUNTY MERGERS, 1907-1969 merger may well be a unique case. None­ theless, circumstances may arise in wh ich Units Involved Date legislatures will reassert the predominance Baton Rouge - East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana 1947 of the state's interest in metropolitan Hampton - Elizabeth City County, Virginia 1952 problems. Aside from Indiana, there have Miami - Dade County, Florida (Partial) 1957 been preliminary indications of such Nashville - Davidson County, Tennessee 1962 thinking. In 1968, the Virginia Metro­ Virginia Beach - Princess Anne County, Virginia 1962 politan Areas Study Commission heard South Norfolk - Norfolk County, Virginia 1962 1967 proposals that the State force merger. In Jacksonville - Duval County, Florida Indianapolis - Marion County, Indiana 1969 other states, also, there are occasional, if

Entered as second-class matter Charlottesville, Virginia NEWS LET TER