Memphis is a shrinking city.
We’re not talking about the slight decrease in the raw population numbers since 2000. Rather, we’re talking about the practical impact of significant population losses in the traditional city – represented by the 1970 Memphis boundaries. It’s these areas whose neighborhoods need to be healthy and whose success is crucial to the future of Memphis.
Because (thankfully) we’re not like most similarly sized cities that are land locked and surrounded by dozens of small towns, it’s easy at times to think that our relatively stable population indicates a city that is doing well.
We’ve masked the fact that we are in truth a shrinking city by annexations that prop up our population numbers and grant us a false sense of security. As a result, we’ve side-stepped the serious discussion that is needed about whether annexation today is actually a boon to the budgets of Memphis city government and whether stretching already faltering public services over a larger area is the sound public policy for our city.
Genesis Of The Exodus
Here’s what we are talking about: the population within the 1970 city limits of Memphis is now 28% less than it was then. In other words, 124,348 people within the 217.4 square miles 1970 Memphis borders are no longer there.
Contrary to conventional wisdom that chalks it all up to Mayor Herenton, the largest exodus took place between 1970 and 1980 when 57,987 people left our city.
No amount of annexation is cosmetic enough to prevent the inescapable conclusion that in our pursuit of new taxes, we may actually have escalated the decline of the urban center. Operating on the theory that annexation areas are the sources of much-needed new property taxes, city government has taken a decidedly optimistic viewpoint of the overall net fiscal effect.
Perhaps, it’s not enough to calculate the costs of the new services to the new area. More to the point, the analysis needs to evaluate carefully and thoroughly what the impact is on services and neighborhoods in the former city limits.
We Need To Be Denser
When the 20th century dawned, Memphis covered an area of 18.5 square miles with a density of 7,125. No one would have expected that Memphis should have stayed that small, but even by 1970, it was only at 217.4 square miles (a doubling of the size of the city in about 20 years since 1950).
Today, the size of Memphis is bigger than the size of New York City – 346 square miles to 305 square miles. The overlay of public services over such a massive area stretches already underfunded services even more, and to us, it suggests to us that our city needs a serious debate over the relationship between the size of the city and the effectiveness and economy of its public services.
Maybe, just maybe, the optimal size for highly efficient public services and the best quality of life is smaller, and if it is, we need to decide that now before Memphis expands to almost 500 square miles under the existing annexation reserve agreements with the other Shelby County towns.
When “annexed out,” Memphis will be the size of Los Angeles.
A New Perspective
Already, the density of Memphis is down to just over 2,000 persons per square mile. That’s down from about 4,000 in 1960, about 3,000 in 1970, and about 2,500 in 1980. Not only are cities more sustainable when they are denser, but public services are easier to deliver economically.
Perhaps, a comprehensive return on investment analysis will show that annexation is the best course of action for city government, but we need to be sure. We need to see the evidence.
And, the evidence must be more than an accounting exercise. More to the point, it must reach conclusions about what the older parts of our city are likely to look like as a result of more annexation, including the needs of these area and the ability of the city to respond to them. Most of all, the analysis should consider investments that would improve Memphis’ ability to compete for 25-34 year-old college-educated workers and middle class families back into Memphis.
Before we begin, we need to set aside the obsession by cities in growing population. Growth at the expense of quality of life means nothing. Growth at the fringe that consumes funds that should be invested in the “old” city is not really growth in its broadest sense.
Getting The Conversation Right
That’s why we believe that Memphis needs to get involved in the shrinking cities discussions under way by several cities. It’s a field of study just now getting attention, but it will become more and more important in coming years. After all, for every two cities that are growing, three are shrinking.
We may not like the company we will be keeping – Detroit, Dayton, Cleveland and Youngstown, to name but four – but we need to consider that success may not be in celebrating 40 units of housing in a badly deteriorated section of Memphis but in considering how we move people around so our city operates more economically and efficiently.
Cities like Cleveland seem to be failing fast; 115,000 people have left that city in this decade alone, and cities like St. Louis have half the population it had 50 years ago. So, while we need to look at Memphis in new ways, the dimensions of the problems here have not reached the levels of these Rust Belt cities, and that’s why we need to start this conversation now.
We admit that the prospects of a downsized city may be bruising to our civic ego, but it is nonetheless essential. Just as the slow food movement started in Europe, so did the slow city movement. Its singular message is that a smaller city does not necessarily mean that it is a failing city. Most are victims of forces beyond their control.
Bipolar Behavior
In this way, the shrinking city movement is about holding two opposing ideas at the same time – hope and despair. It is in embracing contradictory forces that success may be found, and if any city is to do it well, there’s little reason that it shouldn’t be Memphis, because we’ve built a history on our conflicting character – Beale Street in the Bible Belt, flourishing African-American culture in the segregated South, outsiders changing world culture in the midst of hide-bound conservatism.
And yet, the driving force in our history is passion, and that’s why the shrinking city discussion isn’t about despair. It’s not about an academic exercise. It’s about passion, and a belief that we can reimagine a future for Memphis that captures national attention but captures the attention of the toughest audience of all – Memphians.
Yep.
It’s no surprise that the largest decrease occurred between 1970 and 1980, thanks to court mandated busing. The sprawl known as Hickory Hill was one of the big results. So there’s that bit of leftist social engineering by the courts to thank.
Perhaps annexation isn’t the key. Perhaps we should turn the most recently annexed areas back over to the county. Is it possible to unannex?
Savethismg … I have long proposed the same thing! Memphis needs to shed the responsibility and costs for many of its annexations.
At a minimum it needs to stop annexing. We also need to drop the idea of consolidation. That’s nothing more than one big annexation.
What makes anyone think Shelby County would want Hickory Hill, Boxtown, Raleigh or New Chicago BACK from memphis?
You annexed it. You pay for it.
It is possible to deannex, and we need to be giving it the level of thought that it deserves.
How about a bunch more cities. Smaller Governments more responsive services. LA has 88 cities. I can see eleven or twelve cities with an over-arching county government. Eleven or twelve school districts as well.
Hectorspector:
A bunch more cities would only amplify the economic segregation that grips this community, and state law doesn’t allow for incorporation of more cities anyway.
But we could go for more school districts.
State law doesn’t allow areas to incorporate? I find that hard to believe, but even if it is true, state law can be changed.
Imagine if Frasyer, for example, were its own city. It could then be in control of it’s own federal funds and spend it as it pleases, as opposed to having it’s share of funds diverted to adaptive reuse of a sports arena for a bait shop.
I am hard pressed to think of instances where expanding the size and scope of government lead to anything good. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” notion seems more beneficial.
Hector and I really should be having this “conversation” with Rebuild Government. Not that it would do any good. They will press forward with their pro-consolidation agenda, which has no chance of winning with the voters.
anti:
We wrote that too fast. State law does not allow for any more incorporations within Shelby County as a result of Chapter 1101 and the growth plan agreement signed between Memphis and the county towns.
And we think you are badly mistaken about a referenda on a new government. Much has changed in the demographics and make-up of the population outside Memphis, and if we were the mayors of the small towns, we’d be getting assurances in a new charter that clarified and protected them from agreements and changes reached by city and county governments. There are opportunities for super majorities in crucial areas that they seem to worry about.
Their best hope is to get in the conversation and have a voice rather than saying everything is broken, they don’t want any changes, and then expect different results.
PS: For years, we’ve thought that city government should set aside amounts of funding spend in different parts of the city and allow those areas to set their own priorities and fund their own discretionary programs.
I may be badly mistaken, but I doubt it. I am confident that a majority of voters do not trust government, especially if it involves what is the City of Memphis. All the “assurances” in the world wont mitigate that skepticism, especially if they stop and consider that what is being proposed is BIG GOVERNMENT.
Anyway, I am not advocating that everything is broken and nothing should change. I am advocating that my own Memphis neighborhood should be autonomous with its own governance accountable to my neighbors and me. It’s too bad that I don’t have the deep pockets of a Rebuild Government so that I can control the “conversation”. I believe that there are plenty of voters in Shelby County that would agree with my perspective.
anti:
1) City of Memphis government goes away, and we can’t miss the opportunity to take care of that, as well as getting the county business model into this century.
2) It’s not bigger government. It actually eliminates one government, gets rid of at least 200 managers (and more), combined offices like IT (where city spends $20M and county spends $13M), etc.
I like your idea about a degree of autonomy within an existing government. We’ve been advocating that for years, and Mayor Wharton told us that he’s thinking about how it can be done at some level, such as allowing neighborhoods to set priorities and then be given the money to do what they decide.
As far as we can tell, Rebuild Government is not controlling any conversation but giving us a chance to get involved. As its co-chairs said at the rollout, it’s about seeing what a charter could be, and at the end of the day, they may not be for it. But we have to at least have the discussion.
Wow, SCM, just wow. You would have undoubtedly let the Spartans vote in the Athenian elections!
I don’t even know where to start.
How benevolent of you to advocate giving money to neighborhoods to address their own priorities.
You sound just like Santa Claus.
Big Government is not necessarily defined by its labor force size, but smaller government would be more responsive and closer to home than a metro government with an urban services tax and a county tax.
I am curious to know what the legislative body will look like under this Big Government proposal. Let’s take Bartlett, as an example. There are an estimated 37,036 voting age people in Bartlett (per US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census estimate 2006-2008). They have 6 alderman (in addition to the mayor), or 6,172 people per alderman.
If we’re rebuilding government into something better (more responsive to its citizens), then what size legislative body would we need to get the sort of people to legislator ratio that Bartlett enjoys?
Just in Memphis, there are an estimated 470,722 voting age people (maybe less since 2008 though because so many people are leaving, so let round it down to 450,000 just for fun). You’d need a legislative body with at least 73 people on it to approach the legislative representation ratio in Bartlett. And that doesn’t even take into account the rest of the metro goverment area or the remaining municipalities Talk about BIG GOVERNMENT!
The more I think about it, the more I find in favor of incorporating smaller, more responsive towns within the boundaries of Memphis. A city of Memphis bounded by the loop on the north, south, and east. A city of Whitehaven. A City of Raleigh. A City of Hickory Hill. A City of Frayser. These could be so much more responsive to their citizens than some big government monolith with poor legislative representation.
If it is good enough to combine a couple of governments and leave six others out of the equation, why not instead allow Hickory Hill, for example, to control its own destiny just as we will allow Germantown to control its own destiny?
So this is all just a “conversation” and a chance to get involved? Yet you definitively know that 200 managers (and more will) be eliminated? First of all, I doubt that there are 200 mangers between the two entities managing the same services. But assuming there are, why not identify who these managers (and more) are. Since this is just a conversation and nothings been decided, I am curious to know what 200 jobs will be eliminated.
It’s an easy thing to say. Will get rid of 200 jobs. Well, let’s get it all out on the table and really have a conversation. What 200+ jobs are going to be eliminated? Does Rebuild Government have this information? Is it in their slickly produced video mentioned in the recent CA article? Are the Rebuild Government chairs sharing this information with the public. I’ve looked at the Rebuild Government website and can’t find anything about the 200+ jobs that will be eliminated.
Are these jobs that will be eliminated part of the analysis under review by the Charter Commission? Can you direct me to the study that has analyzed and determined which managers (and more) will be eliminated, because I am finding it really hard to believe there is that much management overlap between the two governments?
The idea of smaller governments is well worth considering and needs to be a part of the conversation. Hopefully Rebuild Government and the Charter Commission truly do not have their mind made up already and will give this possibility full consideration in the conversation. I bet if we gave the voters of Frasyer a choices that included controlling their own destiny, they would take that choice.
antisocialist: Funny, we thought you were the one acting like the benevolent one, saving Frayser for the future.
Setting aside your desire to incorporate all around Memphis – which has choked to death many cities, as research has shown – the Memphis city government will eventually take up 50% more area of Shelby County. So, there is a giant city government in your future, because your option is not legally allowable. For that reason, we haven’t stayed focused on that option since it can’t happen.
As for us, we’d prefer a countywide government in which there is only one large government rather than two large governments. Perhaps, you have some ideas that you can give to the Charter Commission for ways that you think government can provide more self-determination to neighborhoods.
And under the new government, neighborhoods and towns would have their own representatives for the first time. For example, Bartlett would have its own legislator to represent its interest and speak for it, rather than its county commissioners also representing all the other towns and unincorporated areas. This should be appealing to the Northern part of the county which never gets to have anyone there representing the district.
The waste and duplication aren’t occuring between Shelby County and Germantown, but Shelby County and Memphis, so that’s where the greatest economies will take place, but that said, it’s up to each of the municipalities to determine if they want to be part of a new government.
We definitely know that 200 managers can be eliminated because all you have to do is take the number of duplicative divisions and departments and then count the number of management positions that are found in both places. It doesn’t take a CPA, just an org chart, budget and the personnel complement. It’s all online if you want to do it. We think 200 is a conservative number.
We wouldn’t expect the Rebuild Government website to have any of this kind of information, because it’s about a conversation. We’re about a definite point of view here, and we certainly don’t speak for anyone else. That said, we know quite a bit about government operations and we’re confident in our estimates. And if you pull the records to do the same calculations about duplicative management, compare the budgets in particular for operating departments like information technology, finance, purchasing, general services, etc. We think there is great opportunity to economize and increase efficiency there in particular.
The Charter Commission hasn’t even started writing a proposed charter yet, so we hope you’ll share your opinions and ideas with them. And why don’t you invite Rebuild Government to have one of those home meetings with you? We’re planning to do it, because we want to find out what they’re saying.
It is disingenuous to say that my option CAN’T happen. While state law doesn’t allow it now, state law can be changed. All it takes is a legislative majority favorable to my position and willing to make the change.
If we are going to rebuild/reinvent, why let current state law tie our hands? Why not consider EVERY possibility, and lobby to get the state law changed if necessary.
Something tells me that the General Assembly might be very amenable to a change in state law that provides for smaller community-based government in Shelby County.
For sake of simplicity given your special familiarity with local government, can you identify the overlapping divisions, as well as the division that do do not over lap? Is that asking to much?
I am advocating to give communities throughout Shelby County FULL responsibility and control over their own destiny (while decreasing the size of Memphis) and put communities on a similar footing to the other six municipalities. Instead of choking Memphis to death, it might provide it a new lease on life. How many of these choked cities were actually reduced geographic size into something more manageable.
I may host one of the Rebuild Government forums or otherwise attend one. Their site also appears to offer opportunity for input.
I suspect their are a lot of folks out their in Memphis and Shelby County that are distrustful of big government that would find the idea of smaller governments, like those in the other six thriving municipalities, to be appealing. It’s just a matter of spreading the word. it’s a good thing this conversation is happening, huh? Hopefully the idea of smaller community governments will gain momentum and prevail.
Not only does state law not allow, but intergovernmental agreements between Memphis, Germantown, Collierville, Lakeland, Bartlett, Millington, and Arlington don’t allow it. The growth plan divided up all the area in the county to each of the cities, so there is no land left.
And we’d take the bet about the General Assembly being amenable to a chance that allows for more incorporations. After all, the last time this question came up more than a decade ago, both county associations and municipal associations opposed it, and the legislators passed Chapter 1101.
If you host a Rebuild Government meeting before we do, let us know how it goes. And we hope you’ll tell them – and Charter Commission – about your idea for smaller community-based governments. Meanwhile, you might want to check with the Shelby County legislative delegation to get their pulse on changing the Tennessee Code.
Please take the org charts for each government – eliminate one mayor and staff, eliminate an attorney, eliminate CAO and assistants, eliminate one set of divisions and assistants, eliminate one engineer, etc. It adds up pretty quickly. And that’s just at the division levels. Then take the departments and do the same. A new government would flatten the management structure even beyond the obvious overlap, hopefully.
You may be right about the General Assembly, or maybe not. It’s composition is a lot different now than it was during the toy towns days.
What I am advocating could be done without encroaching upon the boundaries established for the other municipalities through Chapter 1101. I am basically advocating subdividing Memphis into small governments.
Eliminate an attorney? Are you effin’ kidding me? How many attorneys have been added to the county workforce in the past seven years, and how many are soon to be added to the City?
I may be misremembering, but I believe that Charles Murray, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, essentially advocated the same general concept of small community governments in his book entitled “In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government” about twenty years ago.
As I recall, much of the foundation for his stance was based upon his Peace Corps experience in Thailand.
Orange County, CA has 34 incorporated cities and is one of the wealthiest counties in the country. Los Angeles County has 88 cities.
What some of us are proposing would empower communities and expand individual choice. That is certainly worth adding to the conversation. And if we need to back up and adjust state law to make it happen, that is what we should do.
It took over 100 years to reach this point. We do not need to rush ourselves into a solution in less than year.
Other than enriching the powerful, there really is no need to rush into consolidation in 11 months. We should instead fully explore other possibilities including deconsolidation.
antisocialist: We weren’t talking about the staff attorneys (although city/county is way overstaffed). We were talking about there being no need for a city attorney and a county attorney. Keep in mind that the mayors, directors, city attorney all make $130K or so, and the assistants and office operations account for about twice that, so it mounts up pretty quickly when their duplicate jobs are eliminated. But there are department heads who would also be eliminated and their impact is almost as high, not to mention upper and middle management.
We agree with the small government enterprises. We just see it being crafted within the structure allowable by the law.
There’s no rush for consolidation. With the listening tour and the conversation before it, we’ve been engaged in this for way too long, in our opinion.
We don’t know of another option that can shake things up as effectively, but we’d welcome your suggestions.
This is the doable option, and we have no margin for error, so we need to be doing something as quickly as we can.
We’re not sure how consolidating government is enriching the powerful.