Would a metro-wide “super government” be best for the Denver area?
A half-century ago, that question was discussed around our town(s), but eventually dismissed for lack of interest. The topic has arisen again because of a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development, based in Paris.
The OECD claims that residents are happier, more productive and better-paid when large metro areas are run by big commissions of Grand Rulers rather than by many diverse local city and county governments.
Maybe a case can be made that municipal services can be provided more economically when furnished by one central source.
After all, depending on how you define it, our “urban megaplex” at the foot of the Rockies is comprised of four to seven counties and at least two dozen cities and towns, ranging from Denver (estimated population: 650,000) to Lakeside (actual population: eight).
But there is plenty of evidence that bigger is not always better.
For starters, Detroit has declared bankruptcy. Corruption is a continuing problem in Chicago. Taxes are sky high in New York City and municipal workers there seemingly are always on strike.
Plus, city bosses with monopolistic control are often more concerned with nannyism than the genuine issues.
In Los Angeles, county supervisors have outlawed further development of fast-food restaurants in some parts of the city because they deem residents there as “too fat.”
And what a major step forward in good government when the rulers of New York City voted to ban the sale of large soda drinks for the same reason. Rightfully, the courts have ruled that a violation of constitutional rights, if not common sense.
I suspect the OECD findings are more about controlling the populace than “streamlining” government.
These “social engineers” are likely the same people who have always decried “urban sprawl.” They have a propensity for high density. They see Utopia as a place where everyone lives in small houses on small lots so that people can better “interact.” They hate shopping malls or big-box retailers.
Now that there is little hope of curbing suburbia’s spread, perhaps they still seek to tell everyone how to live through Big Brother.
On balance, we are fortunate that the Denver area is what it is. All of the cities operate with a large degree of fiscal responsibility and responsiveness to the wishes of their citizens. Corruption is rare. And, with rare exceptions, governing bodies stick to the legitimate issues.
Sales-tax rates remain competitive from city to city because if one got too high, shoppers would go to an adjoining municipality.
Housing and retail development is based on what the public wants, not a theory of what it should be.
The Englewood City Council is not going to ban Big Gulps. Residents there would merely go buy their pop in Littleton.
Westminster city fathers and mothers wouldn’t think of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour (a la Los Angeles) because businesses would move to Arvada or Thornton.
Having numerous local governments is a wonderful defense against wackiness.
It’s good that we nixed “super government” years ago.
Dick Hilker of Arvada (dhilker529@aol.com, is a retired suburban newspaper editor and columnist. He writes twice a month for The Denver Post.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
