8
Last, as an overall observation consolidation is essentially a political act that involves a
re-ordering of power relationships (Lowndes, 2001). Paradoxically, it presents both a unifying
image while also dividing up the spoils of reorganization. Consolidated governments seek to
unify their citizens around a common “vision” or set of ideals. The range of values can be
enormous––from populist notions of greater equity to elitist ideas of executive dominated
corporate models. At the same time consolidations are divisive and confer both privileges and
penalties. Consolidations have an operative quality that magnifies the influence of some groups
and diminishes the presence of others. The means by which consolidation is brought about are
also varied. Symbolic manipulation is integral to consolidation politics–– couched in the
dissembling rhetoric of progress and growth, appeals for managerial efficiencies and a genuine
search for innovation. It is a chess game disguised as a circus whose dynamics are shaped by
territorial, managerial and political realignments.
We now explore these dynamics as they pertain to Louisville. For a number of reasons
this case is important. While small localities have consolidated in recent years, no significant
metropolitan area or regional center in the U.S. has put the issue on its agenda in over 35 years.
Louisville and Jefferson County alone stand out as the only medium to large sized area to have
put consolidation on its agenda since Indianapolis was reorganized in 1969.
2
Louisville also
holds the distinction of having both rejected and accepted consolidation, and it portrays the
conditions under which the voters expressed those choices.
There are also important parallels between Louisville and other cities that have
consolidated during the last fifty years. Louisville typifies the political and cultural features of
other consolidated areas like Baton Rouge (1947) Nashville (1962) Jacksonville (1967)
Convention