3
are incremental and less threatening to local autonomy. They also allow for gradual adjustments
over time and seek to leverage the resources of localities in order to construct networks of
cooperation. Thus inter local agreements (Los Angeles), city-county compacts (Charlotte) and
confederated metropolises (Minneapolis-St. Paul) reshape inter local arrangements by creating
divisions of labor or contributing to a common pool of resources (Savitch and Vogel, 1996;
2001). These arrangements not only allow localities to be kept intact, but build upon their
continuing legitimacy.
City county consolidation also has a profound impact on local life. It goes to the very
heart of a community by transforming its identity, altering its geography and changing its
composition. Overnight communities can be legally eliminated and merged with new
populations, whose mere presence can transform the social character of an area and whose
actions can its restructure political authority. The simple act of drawing new lines around a
newly designated entity can radically alter its official profile––from ratios of poverty to median
incomes to assessed property values. The mere perception of “change” or claims related to
“change” reverberates through the psychological mindset of a community.
Americans, particularly at the local level, are not inclined toward radical innovations, and
it is not surprising that during the 20
th
century just 32 cities and counties have taken that step.
Consolidated areas represent less than one percent of the total number of counties, and the
number has remained stagnant (Campbell and Durning, 2000). When presented with the choice
of whether to consolidate the overwhelming number of localities vote against that alternative
(Beardslie, 1998). Over the last half century more than 100 referenda were put before local
voters and three quarters of them rejected consolidation (Blodgett, 1996; Feiock and Carr, 2000).
Convention