In Wake of Scandals, 2 Major Cities May Curb Politicians' Power
Governing
There are always concerns that city councilmembers can become too parochial, obsessing about how projects will affect their own districts rather than the city as a whole. In two cities, recent scandals have shown that this way of thinking can become an avenue to crime.
In both Chicago and Philadelphia, members of the city council are facing criminal charges that stem from development decisions. Councilmembers in those cities are given unusual amounts of authority when it comes to matters such as selling government-owned land. The practice is known as aldermanic privilege in Chicago and councilmanic prerogative in Philadelphia. Those terms are mouthfuls that barely hint at the kind of power bestowed on these officials. With the strong district system that we have and councilmanic prerogative, it seems like its taken the mayor out of land use planning as a major player, says Jon Geeting of Philadelphia 3.0, a local government reform group.
Lone councilmembers can decide if and when a project will move ahead. Not surprisingly, this creates real problems. In order to ensure get projects off the ground, developers know to approach councilmembers first, before theres been a zoning change or request for sale or some other action thats going to be made public. A developer, by the unwritten rules of councilmanic prerogative, has to get the favor of a council person at a very early stage, says Larry Eichel, who directs the Pew Charitable Trusts Philadelphia research initiative. None of that is going to be transparent.
This can have a number of ill effects. Theres the obvious danger of sweetheart deals, with politicians ensuring that their friends and campaign contributors get more than their share of the development action. But it can also serve to slow progress, with councilmembers refusing to greenlight projects in their districts. They may reject construction of a hospital, say, or a large mixed-use development the city may need after theyve been hit by neighborhood opposition. Academic reports have found, and lawsuits have alleged, that the practice serves to perpetuate racial segregation.