The structure of American city government has hardly changed in over a hundred years.
If automobiles had advanced at a comparably slow pace, we’d all still be driving Model A’s. Maybe there’d be music on Bluetooth while the engine sputtered, but it would still be a Model A.
Our existing municipal government political structures are relics left to us by the first progressives around the turn of the 20th Century. These progressives, highly organized and activated, had formed the National Municipal League to clean up urban government, which was a corrupt, Tammany Hall-style, mess.
Many of the progressive reforms championed by the National Civic League were striking successes that improved urban life. But in their zeal to defeat unscrupulous ward bosses, the first progressives undermined representative democracy, a mistake with consequences that have worsened over time.
The National Municipal League is still with us, renamed the National Civic League, which has a “model city charter” that has changed relatively little over the past century.
I must confess, as I planned for the launch of our 21st Century municipal reform project, Cities Rising, I had negative thoughts about the National Civic League. I assumed that they would be inflexible and closed-minded defenders of the status quo established by their forebears.
Happily, I was wrong. Much to my surprise and delight, the venerable journal of the National Municipal League, The National Civic Review, has published an essay that I have written, which is an implicit critique of the National Civic League’s existing model city charter.
We live at a time when few people are willing to seriously entertain contrary ideas, so kudos to the National Civic League for encouraging a real discussion about urban democracy.
You can check out my piece HERE, and let the debate begin!
Stephen Erickson 