This is part two of a two-part story from Strong Towns member and longtime contributor Alexander Dukes. Read part one here.

Implementing Government Subsidiarity

To practically implement the principle of subsidiarity within government, we need to develop some policy strategies that manifest the principle at every level of government. I suggest the following three strategies:

First, localize democracy to the neighborhood level. This will make it easy for citizens to make small decisions in the neighborhood and ward, and it will provide a venue for ideas and complaints to be elevated up levels of governance.

Second, increase local decision-making and taxation authority. Allowing more decisions to be made in municipalities will allow each locality to address their issues in a way that is unique to their community and more effective to their needs.

Third, implementing a “chain of representation” among the different levels of government will establish personal working relationship “chains” between government officers from the neighborhood level to the state level.

The details about how each of these strategies should be executed is outlined below:

1. Localize Democracy to the Neighborhood Level.

Establish neighborhood congresses. Neighborhood congresses will be composed of residents. The neighborhood congress will elect a neighborhood speaker for their neighborhood.
Establish ward boards. Ward boards will be composed of the neighborhood speakers in each city council or county commission ward. The city councilor or county commissioner of the ward board will chair the board and break ties in ward votes.
These neighborhood congresses and ward boards will aid municipalities by making smaller decisions for their own jurisdictions and advising city councils and county commissions on broader issues that affect the whole municipality.

2. Increase Local Decision Making and Taxation Authority.

Cities, counties, states, and the federal government will allow each level of government to make decisions that are reasonably confined to its jurisdiction.
Cities and counties will provide an equal portion of their aggregate tax revenues collected to each neighborhood congress and ward board, with the amount of the equal portions being determined by the city and county legislatures.
States will provide an equal portion of its aggregate tax revenues to regional commissions, with the amount of the equal portions being determined by the state legislature.
No municipality will be limited by the state in the amount or manner of taxation unless a reasonable negative externality outside the taxing municipality can be demonstrated. Rather, the amount and manner of taxation will be decided by the people of the municipality via their elected representatives, or by referendum in the municipality.

3. Implement a “Chain of Representation” Among Levels of Governance.

Much like a “chain of command” within a military, a chain of representation strategy will put representatives from the lowest level of governance (the neighborhood) in direct connection with the next level of governance (the ward), continuing up to the state level.
Neighborhood congresses will elect a neighborhood speaker, who will represent the neighborhood at the ward board, which consists of all neighborhood speakers in the ward.
The city councilor or county commissioner for the ward will chair the ward board and break ties.
The mayor or county commission chair will represent the city or county at the regional commission, which works directly with the state legislature and executive on large projects.

The following diagram illustrates how the chain of representation would function in a city:

Now let’s take a look at how implementing these three strategies will affect the “organization of governance” chart we examined in part one of this story. Note that areas of the chart that are now changed are highlighted in yellow.

The Neighborhood and Ward Levels

We will begin with the most local forms of government—neighborhoods and wards. Establishing neighborhood congresses and ward boards as subsidiaries of city and county government provides residents an easy-to-access venue for making smaller, but meaningful changes to their communities. Let’s return to our prior example of front lawn gardens:

If a resident of a neighborhood sought the authority to create a garden in their front yard, they would raise the proposal at the neighborhood congress meeting. Having allowed their neighbor to make their case, the neighborhood congress would study the issue and schedule a vote among all the residents at a later meeting. If the neighborhood congress voted in the affirmative, all residents in the neighborhood would then be permitted to create front lawn gardens.

A ward board would function in a similar way. Let’s say a neighborhood’s residents propose lining a boulevard with planter boxes to protect a bike lane and beautify a street. Because the boulevard runs through multiple neighborhoods, subsidiarity theory requires this decision be elevated to the next level of governance. A ward is composed of multiple neighborhoods, so it would be appropriate for a ward to make this decision. The neighborhood’s residents who desire the planters would tell their neighborhood speaker to raise the proposal at the ward board meeting. Having allowed their fellow neighborhood speaker to make their case, the ward board would study the issue and schedule a vote among all the neighborhood speakers in the ward at a later meeting. If the ward board voted in the affirmative the ward board would use its funds to place planters in the portion of the boulevard that is in their jurisdiction.

Using neighborhood congresses and ward boards lets city councils and county commissions focus on the broader, more complex challenges that face the municipality. Moreover, offering more localized control and more accessible municipal government positions will imbue the average citizen with greater influence in their community. Democratic participation will increase when citizens feel they can get involved and make a difference.

The City Level

City councilors and county commissioners chair ward boards, creating a link in the chain of representation between the neighborhood speakers elected by residents and the municipal legislature. This gives municipal legislatures a better understanding of the needs and wants of each ward and neighborhood in their jurisdiction. For an example of how this tighter relationship between municipalities and their communities can work, let’s return to our prior example of the noisy neighborhood:

Image via Unsplash. — *Image via* *Unsplash*.

Let’s say our noisy neighborhood is noisy because it contains a few nightclubs and the residents of the neighborhood like partying all night long. Unfortunately, some adjacent neighborhoods want the city to strictly enforce noise ordinances so they can get some sleep! At the ward board, the neighborhood speakers decide that the best solution to the dispute is for the city to buy a vacant plot in the center of the ward and turn it into a park. City authorities will use this park to channel partygoers into a single location and prevent the current nuisance of people drunkenly roaming about the adjacent neighborhoods. Noise restrictions will be relaxed in the area around the park and nightclubs, but outside of the area noise restrictions will be strictly enforced.

The city councilor of the ward chairs this discussion and coordinates with the city council to help the ward execute a solution. Because purchasing land and enforcing noise restrictions are powers reserved to the city, the city councilor that represents the ward would take the ward’s plan and present it to the city council. Hopefully, the city council would agree to implement the plan. If the city council did not agree to the plan, the councilor of the ward in question would take the council’s concerns back to the ward board and either alter the plan or come up with a new plan.

As shown in this example, by chairing ward boards municipal legislators can deal more effectively with the mundane disputes that emerge in cities from time to time. Now let’s see how we can continue this chain of representation up to the regional level.

The Regional Commission Level

Regional commissions in most states would experience significant changes in my subsidiarity strategy. Voting members of the regional commissions would be the county chairs and mayors of all the municipalities in the region. Using mayors and county commission chairs as the representatives of these regional commissions creates another link in the chain of representation. Because mayors and county commissioners are elected by the people and work directly with municipal legislators, ideas and feedback can travel up the chain from the local neighborhood to the regional level and vice-versa.

Regional commissions’ authority should be limited to planning development and acting as the treasurer for large projects that the municipalities want to finance together. Most work the regional commission would do would be related to planning projects that either affect multiple municipalities or are too complex for a particular municipality to execute. Many less populous municipalities rely on regional commissions to prepare their zoning codes and comprehensive plans. Coordinating planning across a region can reduce land use conflicts and improve the utilization of public infrastructure.

Less often, a regional commission would act as treasurer for larger, inter-municipal projects. Let’s say the municipalities in a region want to move a rail yard and re-route railways that run through the center of a city. Such a rail realignment project would span multiple cities and counties and affect all of them in some way. To better coordinate the financing of such a project, these municipalities could contribute tax money to a common account managed by the regional commission. Once sufficient funds are raised to execute the rail realignment, the regional commission would inform the state or federal government (whichever is applicable). State or federal project administrators would oversee the completion of the rail realignment project.

Making these changes to regional commissions will strengthen municipalities’ ability to plan and work on large projects independent of the state and federal government. When coordination is necessary, regional commissions make the working relationship between municipalities and the state or federal government more effective.

The State Level

The state governance level will have to give up much of its power over municipalities in my subsidiarity strategy. To properly adhere to subsidiarity theory, states should no longer bind municipal authority with laws impeding local decision making. If a city or county’s decision on an issue does not affect a jurisdiction outside of its own, the state has no right under subsidiarity to intervene. Language to this effect ought to be written into state constitutions.

Having already described how states meddle with municipalities’ critical tax authority, let’s examine some real-world examples of how state government can interfere with city and county governance:

1. Austin Uses its Police Budget to Create a Homeless Shelter, Texas Meddles

The city of Austin, Texas, decided to transfer some funds from its police budget to purchase two hotels for use as a homeless shelter and other initiatives. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, declared, “We will defund cities that tried to defund the police.” Legislation will thus be introduced in the Texas legislature to ban municipalities from cutting their police budgets, and the governor has threatened to have the state take over policing in central Austin.

2. A Michigan-Appointed Emergency Manager Precipitates the Flint Water Crisis

In the middle of water contract negotiations with Detroit, the city of Flint, Michigan, was forced by a state of Michigan emergency manager to switch to cheaper water from the Flint river. The city and state fail to properly treat the more acidic water from the Flint River. The acidic water destroys the protective biofilm layer in Flint’s lead pipes and poisons Flint’s residents.

3. Tennessee Effectively Bans BRT Statewide Because Nashville Wants to Implement BRT

The city of Nashville, Tennessee, planned to create a bus rapid transit (BRT) system after winning a federal grant. The Tennessee legislature reacted by introducing a bill that would have banned “all dedicated transit lanes.” The bill was later altered to allow for separate bus lanes, but now any bus lanes require approval from the Tennessee legislature. Nashville has dropped its plans to build a BRT system since this requirement was added.

These examples might seem like cartoon-villain caricatures of state interference in municipal business, but this type of behavior by state governors and legislatures is all too common. There is no reason that a city should be punished for deciding to shift funds around to care for its homeless population. Nor is there any reason “state appointed emergency managers” should interfere with municipal water negotiations. Nor should state legislatures ban a form of transit just because a city wants to implement it. These examples of harmful, dictatorial interference in municipal business are why the theory of subsidiarity is so important. States need to “stay in their lane” and let the people who live in cities and counties make governing decisions for themselves.

The Federal Level

Compared to the state, the changes I propose for the federal government are more technical and minor. To abide by the theory of subsidiarity, the federal government needs to design government development programs with the assumption that states and municipalities will use the funding they provide in an effective manner. States and municipalities should be allowed to experiment locally. Federal administrators should establish basic rules, observe what practices do and don’t work, then offer advice to states and municipalities as they learn with them. Federal administrators should only employ strict regulations when states and municipalities misuse funds or fail to use funds effectively. This will allow states and municipalities to be our “laboratories of democracy.”

The federal government should also enforce subsidiarity in project design by deferring to regional commissions and municipalities as appropriate. For example, if a state seeks to establish uniform design standards for federally funded highways, it is appropriate for the federal government to listen to the advice of a state in that case. However, if a state seeks to alter a highway route through a county and the county disagrees with the state’s proposed route, the federal government should listen to the opinion of the county. The county’s route should receive deference over the state’s route because the county’s chosen route does not affect the broader route of the highway through the state.

Another example could be found in federal housing programs. It is appropriate for states to establish basic standards for federally funded housing in their state. However, it would be inappropriate for a state to intervene and stop a city from using federal funds to buy some old hotels and convert them into public housing. What a city chooses to do with its public housing funds has little effect on anything outside of the city’s boundaries. In subsidiary theory, the decision of what to do with its housing funds should be left to the municipality receiving them.

Conclusion

When these three strategies are implemented throughout America, we will have a much more accessible, effective, and agile experience with government. By localizing democracy to the neighborhood level, average citizens with good ideas or interesting insights will be able to speak up amongst their neighbors and start working on an issue. Using the “chain of representation,” the neighborhood speaker can take the feedback to the ward level of governance. If the idea or issue cannot be implemented or solved at the ward level, the city councilor who chairs the ward board can take the issue to the city council. Because states will have granted greater authority to cities to make their own decisions, the city council will be more empowered than ever to respond to the citizen’s feedback.

By implementing the theory of subsidiarity, we can return to being “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Postscript

While finishing this article, a good example of subsidiarity has come to my attention from Southern California. State law in California requires its regional governing bodies to prepare “Regional Housing Needs Assessments” (RHNA) Allocation Plans as part of the state’s housing law. The RHNA Allocation Plan informs municipalities how much housing they need to build over eight years to meet acceptable economic conditions. Pursuant to this, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared a RHNA Allocation Plan (pdf link) for the municipalities within its jurisdiction.

This is a great example of subsidiarity, because California is establishing a clear, limited law to address the statewide housing affordability issue. To determine how much housing needs to be built where, the municipalities gather at their “regional commission” (in this case, SCAG) to hammer out housing allocations. Having been informed by SCAG on how much housing they need to build, each municipality develops their own unique, contextual means of providing the housing.

Los Angeles’s share of new housing to be provided over eight years is 456,643, or about 57K homes built in the city each year. It is up to Los Angeles to determine how it wants to provide this required housing. If Los Angeles does not meet this goal, it is my understanding that Los Angeles could lose some authority over zoning and other land-use controls.

Los Angeles can choose to meet its housing goals either by incrementally up-zoning large swaths of the entire city, or it can choose a few areas to construct very dense housing towers. Or, it can choose to do a combination of both of those strategies. The important point is that it is up to the municipality. The state has established clear goals, the regional commission has established a broad allotment plan for each municipality, and the municipalities now must act to meet those goals. Otherwise, the state will act on its own to meet the housing goals. This is an appropriate implementation of subsidiarity theory and a practical manifestation of the ideas expressed in this article.

It's Time to Bring Decision-Making Down to the Local Level (Part 2)