When I moved here in the 1960s, Rochester was a community of
promise, with a bustling downtown and great plans for the future. It felt more
vibrant, more big-city than the two Southern cities I knew best, my hometown of
Knoxville, Tennessee, and Nashville, near which my husband grew up.
That’s no
longer the case. Nashville is pumped up, full of activity, with a growing
population: 13.6 percent in the past 12 years. In the 10-county Nashville metro
area, the population has grown by almost 30 percent. The region has attracted
new business and industry and major-league sports, and has fashioned itself
into a major tourist attraction.
Monroe
County, on the other hand, is stuck. Our population is basically the same as it
was in 1970. All we’ve done is move people around — from the city to the
suburbs.
Nashville’s
mayor, William Purcell, was in Rochester a couple of weeks ago, talking about
what he thinks has made the difference in Nashville: metropolitan government.
(The program was sponsored by the Downtown Community Forum, the Common Good
Planning Center, and the League of Women Voters at the suggestion of Rochester
Mayor Bill Johnson.)
In his
talk, Purcell was careful to say that he wasn’t comparing Rochester to
Nashville, and that he wasn’t recommending metro government for us. But, that
said, he was clear: consolidating city and county government in
Nashville-Davidson County laid the groundwork for Nashville’s boom.
“I know
from my own observation,” he said, “that it is the best thing we’ve ever done.”
Nashville isn’t
Rochester. But, for me, it’s been interesting to compare development in the
two cities, since they were so close to the same size when I moved here.
Also interesting
has been the different paths Nashville and its sister city up the highway,
Knoxville, have taken. Knoxville and its surroundings have grown more than
Rochester, but not as much as Nashville. While Knoxville has annexed some of
its suburbs, it has not consolidated its government with the county’s. And so I
asked Purcell: Is the difference in Nashville’s and Knoxville’s growth — and
vibrancy — metropolitan government?
“In my
opinion, yes,” said Purcell. “It’s not the location. It’s not the humidity.
It’s not any of those things.”
Nashville’s
transition from a city within a county to a consolidated “unigov,” as our
county executive likes to call metro, began in the 1950s, with a study
published by a citizen’s group. The metro area’s strength then was in the city
(as it was here). But suburban residents wanted more services, and there was
tension between city and county governments over who should provide them.
In 1958
consolidation was put to a vote, and under state law, residents of the city and
the suburbs had to approve it. Community leaders were united. The mayor, the
county executive, both daily newspapers, the Chamber of Commerce, parents’
groups, unions, the League of Women Voters: all urged consolidation.
The plan
passed in the city, but went down in the surrounding county. That didn’t end
the concerns that had led to the referendum, though. And it didn’t stop the
debate.
In 1962,
city-county consolidation was back on the ballot. There were objections common
to metro debates: minority residents were afraid their representation would be
diluted. Some voters were afraid they would be more poorly represented by a
larger, metro government. Unions were concerned about protecting jobs, wages,
and benefits.
And there
were the predictable charges that metro government is a communist plot.
“Castro,” read a sign in a storefront, “has Metro.”
By this
point, Nashville’s mayor was opposed to consolidation; he had begun annexing
suburbs. While one daily newspaper continued to support consolidation, the other
went headlong against it.
But voters
were changing their minds. The proposal called for a large City Council — 40
members — to provide smaller bases of representation. Public-employee
protection was built in.
This time,
the measure passed, by 56 percent in both the city and the suburbs.
What makes the
difference with metro government? Purcell gives the same answer that other
metro proponents give: efficiency, accountability, focus:
“The
ability of one local government not to pass the buck, not to blame other
governments… a sense of ‘it’s you,’ a sense when business is coming, that
there’s one government to deal with… the ability of this larger city to speak
with one voice.”
After
Purcell’s talk, someone in the audience raised the concern about people wanting
services delivered close to home. Monroe County residents seem to like the
number and layers of government provided by their nine villages, 19 towns, one
town-village, the city, and the county. “You have a larger amount of government
representation than we do,” Purcell agreed.
But he said
he’s convinced that in Nashville, government officials and government services are close to home. And, he said, the
efficiency, the lack of multiple levels of government, gives Nashville money to
provide higher quality.
“I’m in a
city that can afford the most sophisticated fingerprint ID system,” he said,
“computers in every police car, a fulltime, full-service fire department” that
serves the entire county.
“I believe
we can provide overall a higher, more effective level of service,” said
Purcell. Tennessee, he added, is the lowest-taxed state in the nation, “and
we’re the lowest-taxed city in the state.”
“You have
to decide how much government you can afford,” said Purcell. “You can keep
buying as much government as you can afford and want.”
This article appears in Oct 30 – Nov 5, 2002.
