However, in context, Pierce asks a shrewd question that ought to be given due consideration. Are state governments the right place to seat control of everyday affairs? To clarify, again, Pierce is not advocating for the dissolution of state governments. Instead, under his scheme, state governments could concentrate attention on their "indispensable priorities." For example, he posits higher education systems, a truly state-wide institution, the general governance of which can be relatively similar across all locations in the state.
What Pierce does propose is to vest greater autonomy in regions as the state's political subsidiary. Thus, for instance, Denver and its surrounding suburbs and communities would ideally form a regional council of governance that would foster cooperation among the individual members as well as promote consistency of policies that cross municipal boundaries. In fact, such an organization already exists to address some of the regional issues (e.g., regional transit, regional planning, water issues) in the Denver-Metro area. See www.drcog.org for more information. Pierce does not indicate whether he believes such regional organizations would be or should be granted binding authority, and, if so, how that authority would relate to the municipal authority of its members. Would the regional councils serve primarily as advisory boards and forums for inter-municipal discussion? Or would the regional councils essentially be another level of governance inserted between the state and municipal governments? In either case, more autonomy is given to the local unit of government to recognize, confront, and address issues specific to the local unit, rather than relying on a state legal scheme that must attempt to adequately serve the distinct needs of urban and rural regions within the state.
For Pierce, this approach makes sense because life in the United States does not revolve around the state. Rather, in terms of population, economics, jobs, etc., life occurs in metropolitan regions. The interconnectedness of these metropolitan regions - logistically and philosophically - is thus a key aspect of continued growth. Perhaps under Pierce's scheme, metropolitan areas in close proximity could jointly develop laws and regulations to make it easier for businesses operating in both areas - establish one level of governance rather than force corporate citizens to deal with the regulations of multiple municipalities or multiple states.
A crucial point is that power still resides in the state government. Any autonomy given to regions or metropolitan areas must be granted by the state. State governments would still exist to manage state-wide institutions (e.g., higher education, as noted previously) and to represent the interests of its subsidiaries in the federal government. As Pierce notes, given the financial difficulty facing many state budgets, reducing the role of state government may be a timely means of easing those crises somewhat.
Taken in context, Pierce's question about the obsolescence of state governments may be a bit less absurd than previously thought. Nonetheless, this delegation of authority by the state to its regional or metro units remains quite unlikely. Does it make sense in that it conforms more to the realistic division of life in the United States? Yes. But many obstacles exist, not the least of which is rural resistance to a scheme that would no doubt increase urban progressive influence in the state and federal government. However, as citizens, we should be constantly mindful both of reality and aspiration and encourage our law and policy makers to be so as well.
Posts
