Why Americans love suburbs #6: local government, local control

One of the unique features of the government of the United States is a federal system that distributes power between the federal government and more local bodies. Even if the federal government has grown dramatically in the last century, the suburbs offer residents a relatively small and responsive local government. Americans claim to prefer small town life and in such communities the distance between average resident and local leaders is reduced.

If the suburbs at their heart are about single-family homes and family life, a small local government can help protect the quality of life in the community. Local governments can exclude certain kinds of development. This then affects what kinds of residents can live in suburbs. See exclusionary zoning cases in DuPage County and Westchester County, two notoriously wealthy suburban counties, or more recent cases of religious groups facing opposition such as Muslims and Orthodox Jews in New Jersey. Homeowners can directly see and respond to how their tax dollars are spent. They may not like high property taxes (whether in the 1970s in southern California or more recently in northern Virginia) or decisions about TIF funds or but at least that money is spent in the community rather than shipped off to other centers of power. They may fight with each other about whether to raise local taxes for schools or fund regional transit initiatives or support affordable housing but at least they may know those they are arguing with and everyone does want their community to be attractive. Suburbanites are resistant to outsiders telling them what they should be doing, whether they are concerned about the federal government pushing denser housing (and perhaps even the UN) or state or court mandates about affordable housing (such as requirements passed in 2004 in Illinois or requirements in New Jersey due to the Mt. Laurel decisions).

While suburbanites may believe they have more access to suburban governments, these elected and appointed officials can have a significant impact on suburban development. The growth machine theory suggests local officials and business people push and pursue development because there is money to be made. Suburban growth is good because it can generate profits and it adds prestige. The growth has to end at some point (see cases like Naperville and Aurora) but officials, with some input from residents, can push suburbs in certain directions. Not all suburbs will make the same decisions about what to do with open land or with their downtowns but local leaders get to make these decisions that then influence residents decades later.

Local control then means that suburban communities can have distinct characters. While critics may suggest suburbia is an endless sprawling mass with very porous boundaries, local governments and development decisions alongside public involvement and civic projects can lead to long-standing and fiercely defended local understandings. The most typical image of an American suburb – bedroom community with postwar subdivisions filled with similar-looking homes – may not actually fit many suburbs in terms of appearance or perceived experience.

How exactly local decision-makers and suburban officials come into office can differ across locales. Voter turnout is low in many local elections so it may not take much effort to become a local official. On the other hand, local politics can sometimes turn very contentious because of particular significant issues or long-standing political factions. Americans tend to be more optimistic about their local conditions than about the country as a whole so suburban officials who do a decent job can retain their positions for a long time. Furthermore, suburbanites may be less interested in efficiencies across local governments, such as combining small police departments, compared to having their own local bodies.

Another aspect of this local control involves less democracy: the rise of homeowner’s associations. A good number of suburbanites are willing to turn over some decisions about their property and neighborhood to a board or management company that will ensure certain standards are upheld. Again, the distance between the average HOA homeowner and board is small; boards often need more people to volunteer to serve and neighborhood meetings allow homeowners to express concerns.

Of course, there are problems among suburban local government. They may not have the resources or expertise to deal with complicated issues (such as providing social services to address suburban poverty). There can be too many smaller units that have their own bureaucracies and abilities to tax residents (see Illinois as an example with numerous taxing bodies and debates about eliminating townships). Local officials can be corrupt (Cicero), incompetent (Harvey), or follow their own paths while remaining impervious to other opinions (Rosemont). Yet, many Americans might argue that even these problematic aspects of suburban governments are relatively easy to deal with compared to the behemoth in Washington.

49 thoughts on “Why Americans love suburbs #6: local government, local control

  1. Pingback: Chicago suburb to sponsor college bowl game | Legally Sociable

  2. Pingback: Would limiting big money in city mayoral races help address low turnout? | Legally Sociable

  3. Pingback: Can proposed legislation on housing prompt a public discussion? | Legally Sociable

  4. Pingback: Suing for more suburban housing | Legally Sociable

  5. Pingback: US now has 201 communities with median home values over $1 million | Legally Sociable

  6. Pingback: What it takes to run for local government positions in the Chicago suburbs | Legally Sociable

  7. Pingback: Limiting suburban redtape to installing solar panels | Legally Sociable

  8. Pingback: Deciding at which social level to counter a social problem | Legally Sociable

  9. Pingback: When the landlord for a single-family home is an institutional investor… | Legally Sociable

  10. Pingback: Local political slates: contrast “values” and “progress” | Legally Sociable

  11. Pingback: Low turnout continues in local elections, Chicago as just one example | Legally Sociable

  12. Pingback: Police violence leading to joint suburban and urban activism | Legally Sociable

  13. Pingback: A town of over 53,000 residents can elect a mayor with just over 3,600 votes | Legally Sociable

  14. Pingback: Chicago area voter turnout around 13-15% | Legally Sociable

  15. Pingback: The suburban way of life is not the result of free markets | Legally Sociable

  16. Pingback: Rethink Rezoning, Save Main responses share similar concerns – Part Two | Legally Sociable

  17. Pingback: Resistance to 5G: technological progress versus local zoning and control | Legally Sociable

  18. Pingback: Suburban opposition to drug treatment centers | Legally Sociable

  19. Pingback: Keeping track of the Democratic field on housing | Legally Sociable

  20. Pingback: When local government meetings go past midnight | Legally Sociable

  21. Pingback: Three larger issues underlying mass transit problems in the Chicago suburbs | Legally Sociable

  22. Pingback: The little development battles happening across American suburbs | Legally Sociable

  23. Pingback: Questions arising from “Hidden networks of [Democratic] suburban women” | Legally Sociable

  24. Pingback: The spread of upzoning and metropolitan regions | Legally Sociable

  25. Pingback: What community wants to actually fine residents for not shoveling their sidewalks? | Legally Sociable

  26. Pingback: Argument: Westchester County and affordable housing better off without federal government involvement | Legally Sociable

  27. Pingback: Is Washington D.C. the center of the United States? | Legally Sociable

  28. Pingback: Bringing the City Council meeting to a (participatory) stage | Legally Sociable

  29. Pingback: Suburban municipalities to take own actions regarding COVID-19? | Legally Sociable

  30. Pingback: Publication in Soc of Religion: “Religious Freedom and Local Conflict: Religious Buildings and Zoning Issues in the New York City Region,1992-2017” | Legally Sociable

  31. Pingback: President Trump suggests suburbs can exclude and exercise local control | Legally Sociable

  32. Pingback: Rasmussen poll finds few Americans want the federal gov’t involved in deciding where people live | Legally Sociable

  33. Pingback: Suburban opposition to apartments has a long exclusionary history | Legally Sociable

  34. Pingback: Selecting a suburban mayor by picking a ping pong ball out of a hat | Legally Sociable

  35. Pingback: What the architecture of City Hall communicates | Legally Sociable

  36. Pingback: Combining local government and company towns in a Nevada proposal | Legally Sociable

  37. Pingback: Will turnout go up for upcoming local elections? | Legally Sociable

  38. Pingback: The difficulty of keeping up with all the choices in local elections | Legally Sociable

  39. Pingback: Turnout for local Chicago area elections low again: under 20% in counties | Legally Sociable

  40. Pingback: Become suburban village president by 2 votes in the era of low local election turnout | Legally Sociable

  41. Pingback: Large actors in the US housing market and building more homes | Legally Sociable

  42. Pingback: The power of local politics to shape national outcomes | Legally Sociable

  43. Pingback: American conflict playing out through local school boards | Legally Sociable

  44. Pingback: Trying to attract suburban voters by fighting Critical Race Theory | Legally Sociable

  45. Pingback: Taking Los Angeles from 10 million planned residents down to nearly 4 million | Legally Sociable

  46. Pingback: Keeping Donald Trump in front of impressionable suburban voters | Legally Sociable

  47. Pingback: Reasons for suburban legislators leading the Illinois Democrats | Legally Sociable

  48. Pingback: Chicago aldermen and affordable housing, public housing | Legally Sociable

  49. Pingback: Numbers that highlight the scope of local governments in the United States | Legally Sociable

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s