Applying the polycentric model to the urban core, the authors first examine how the polycentric model may be applied to an increasing number of large cities that are using subdistricts to provide supplemental public services that district residents desire such as security, sanitation (garbage collection), and economic development. They next analyze the recent creation of the Charles Village Community Benefits District in Baltimore, Maryland, as an empirical example and briefly discuss this subdistrict’s positive impacts. The article concludes with some observations on the implications of subdistricts for equitable and efficient service delivery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Briffault, R.1996. The local government boundary problem in metropolitan areas. Stanford Law Review48 (5): 1115-1171.
2.
Briffault, R.1997. The rise of sublocal structures in urban government. Minnesota Law Review82: 503-503.
3.
Briffault, R. 1998. A government for our time: Business improvement districts and urban governance. Mimeographed.
4.
Dowling, K. , P. John, and S. Biggs. 1994. Tiebout: A survey of empirical literature. Urban Studies31 (4/5): 767-797.
5.
Hawkins, B. W., S. Percy, and S. Montreal. 1996. Residential community associations as governing units nested in local federal systems. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
6.
Hawkins, B. W. , S. Percy, and S. Montreal. 1997. Residential community associations and the American intergovernmental system. Publius27: 61-74.
7.
Hayek, F. A.1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review35 (4): 520-530.
8.
Hirschman, A. O.1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
9.
International Downtown Association . 1996. Business improvement districts. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
Jacobs, J.1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage.
11.
Lineberry, R.1977. Equality and urban policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Newman, O.1972. Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.
13.
Oakerson, R. J.1999. Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
14.
Orbell, J. M. , and T. Uno. 1972. A theory of neighborhood problem solving: Political action vs. residential mobility. American Political Science Review66 (2): 471-489.
15.
Ostrom, E. , and R. B. Parks. 1999. Neither Gargantua nor the land of Lilliputs: Conjectures on mixed systems of metropolitan organization. In Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis, 284-305. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
16.
Ostrom, V.1994. The meaning of federalism: Constituting a self-governing society. San Francisco: ICS Press.
17.
Ostrom, V. , C. M. Tiebout, and R. Warren. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review55 (4): 831-842.
18.
Parks, R. B. , and R. J. Oakerson. 1989. Metropolitan organization and governance: A local public economy approach. Urban Affairs Quarterly25 (1): 18-29.
Teske, P. , M. Schneider, M. Mintrom, and S. Best. 1993. Establishing the micro foundations of a macro theory: Information, movers, and the competitive local market for public goods. American Political Science Review87 (3): 702-713.
21.
Thomas, R. D. , and D. W. Hawes. 1999. Changing coalition politics in Houston: Municipal districts to tax increment reinvestment zones. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, April, Louisville, KY.
22.
Tiebout, C. M.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64 (5): 416-424.
23.
Tullock, G.1994. The new federalist. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.
24.
Williams, O.1971. Metropolitan political analysis. New York: Free Press.
