Glenda B. Claborne
Jour 205/3
October 29, 1997
Rewrite
Most of the incorporation debates in Tucson center on competing claims about the cost of providing public goods and services, noted one of the two out-of-state speakers at a forum on the pros and cons of incorporation held October 10 at the University of Arizona.
David Lowery, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina, said this perspective views local government as "something of a K-mart for garbage collection, sewage and police protection. This collapses the role of a citizen into the role of a consumer."
Nevertheless, Lowery said this is not uncommon or irrational. He then tried to answer the question whether citizens of the proposed new cities would get better deals through incorporation than they would otherwise.
Lowery cited research which shows that the unit cost of providing public goods and services falls as the population rises. He said smaller cities provide fewer services even though the unit cost of services will be higher.
For example, Lowery said, smaller cities find it hard to provide their own fire and sanitation services because these are labor-intensive activities.
"If citizenship means being a consumer, let the buyer beware," Lowery said.
However, Roger Parks, professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University, said the number of residents (50, 000 to 60,000) in the proposed cities in the Tucson area is large enough to provide services efficiently. "The fear of overly expensive services is perhaps overstated," he added.
The Arizona Legislature passed a law in April 1997 that allows areas next to or within six miles of existing cities or towns to incorporate without the approval of the adjoining incorporated city. Since then, several areas around Tucson have filed petitions to incorporate before the Jan.17, 1998 deadline to gather the required signatures for incorporation.
The incorporation of the town of Tortolita was approved by the Pima County Board of Supervisors in August and is currently before the Arizona Court of Appeals. The areas of Casas Adobes, Catalina Foothills and Tanque Verde Valley are currently pushing for incorporation.
Many incorporation supporters say creating their own cities would be a return to small-town democracy similar to the New England town meeting model.
However, Lowery said that the similarity between the New England model and the proposed cities ends with the smallness. The direct democratic participation and direct accountability of elected officials that characterized the New England model would be difficult to achieve in the new cities, which Lowery described as "bedroom communities."
Unlike the old New England towns where the citizens have lived, worked and raised families for most of their lives, Lowery explained, the modern suburbs have mostly new residents who still commute to the central city to work and where their colleagues, employers, employees, parents or children still live.
"Many of the problems greater Tucson is going to face in the next century, from drugs and schools to economic development, arise there (central city). That means, the solutions have to arise there as well."
"One cannot have a political voice in reaching solutions to these problems in the real Tucson community if one's citizenship is defined as being a part of a bedroom community," he added.
"You will be a migrant in the real community in which you live with only the limited political privileges migrant workers enjoy," Lowery explained.
Parks countered it is not impossible to discuss issues at different levels (neighborhood-level, city-level, area-wide, regional). He said, "Having one doesn't prevent having the other. Go to a meeting or two to articulate your voice."
Parks said it is possible to have autonomous, small to medium-sized cities having their own local police, local parks and recreation and local primary school. Moreover, he said, these cities can also cooperate to form large management units for areas such as watersheds, traffic control in arterial highways and police for major drug and crime investigations.
However, based on his study of such cooperative ventures in Kentucky, Lowery said citizens in these places are "having a hard time knowing just who is responsible for what."
Worse than this, Lowery said, different means of providing services provide public officials with an excuse for irresponsibility and political manipulation. He said, citizens in these communities are more likely to be blind to these "rascal politicians."
But Parks said the accountability and efficiency of public officials depend on active citizens. "Many public services are co-produced but consumer participation is essential," he said. "There is no service without the participation of the consumer."
Both speakers agreed that most cities depend not only on providing their own public goods and services but also on contracting with outside providers.
However, Lowery said that in contrast to Southern California where the new cities can contract with a wide choice of providers, in Arizona the proposed cities are talking largely of contracting with the county.
Both Parks and Lowery emphasized the inadvisability of monopolies in producing and providing goods and services.
Parks said, "there is no one right way to organize. I can't give you a blueprint." He advised all sides to give themselves more time to gather information and to pledge not to take one-sided actions.
During this waiting period, Parks advised incorporation supporters not to push that petition, existing cities not to force through with annexation, and county supervisors not to do any localized zoning.
Lowery said the choices are not limited to the status quo of non-incorporation, incorporation or annexation. He said citizens can "derive the desirable attributes of limited and innovative government without Balkanizing the desert. You can change the agenda."
Brinton Milward, director of the School of Public Administration and Policy, said, "We sponsored the forum as part of the educational and community service of the school and the college. We wish to help citizens make choices in the ballot boxes in November."
"I'm here because I wanted to get a balanced perspective to help me make up my mind regarding incorporation. But I still haven't made up my mind after listening to the two speakers," said Gwen Gerhard. She was one of the more than 100 people, mostly over 40, who gathered at the McClelland Hall's Berger Auditorium.
Two couples, in their 60's and who did not want to be identified, said they were disappointed with the forum. They said it was billed as a debate on the pros and cons but all they heard were the cons.
"It was one-sided," said one of the men. "In short, anti-incorporation," seconded one of the women. "Yeah, all the arguments were for a big metropolis, " said the other.
Pete Tescione, spokesperson of a newly formed organization called the Citizens for Democracy and Local Government, disagreed.
"I didn't think it was one-sided. Obviously, the guy who was against incorporation was the more forceful speaker." Tescione said the forum "was an opportunity for people to get an intellectual overview " of the incorporation debate.