by Ashley Nickels | Apr 11, 2017 | Community Control, Urban Politics and Policy
What I learned while studying Flint’s Municipal Takeover: Final Thoughts (this blog post was originally published in Our Community, Our Voice and is reprinted here with permission). I have been warned by numerous scholars, and practitioners alike, to keep an open mind about the use of municipal takeovers. These policies are not designed, they have argued, with malicious intent. Instead, they offer, these policies are intended to help fiscally distressed municipalities deal with the reality that they are facing municipal bankruptcy or dissolution. In other words, would I rather see these cities go bankrupt? Would it be better that the state did nothing and watched the city grow poorer and poorer? No! That does not, however, mean that municipal takeover policies should go unquestioned. The impact of these policies are real—and deserve scrutiny. While I argue that the burdens placed on residents through the implementation of municipal takeover policies outweigh the benefits of fiscal stability, the crux of my research centers on the political impact of municipal takeovers: How local government—and governance—was restructured, how communities responded, and why? As noted in my previous article, my research examines who had access to decision making and who was left out under emergency management. I look at how the policy allocated both benefits and burdens and how people interpreted policy directives. Ultimately, my research offers an explanation for why Flint residents did not “back down” or “shut up,” when the state intervened to ostensibly fix Flint’s finances and instead sought alternative ways of engaging in local politics. I find that the differential allocation of benefits and burdens was interpreted by many as rewarding the...
Recent Comments