Joy Kim ‘17

From Hartford to World Cities (URST 201)

Fall 2014

            In a city with the highest poverty rates in the region and in a state with the second worst Gini coefficient nationwide, Hartford has striking disparities between its city proper and suburbs.[1] These economic inequalities and the lack of a regional government in the Greater Hartford area suggest immense fragmentation between Hartford and surrounding cities. Yet, it cannot be ignored that Hartford’s suburbs have a central city. They cannot be a “suburb of nowhere.”[2] To say that Hartford and its peripheries are not connected would fail to acknowledge the vast number of people who commute in and out of the city, who depend on the city to some extent. This raises the question of why a governing body is not formally established in the Hartford metropolitan area to address and strengthen those connections. Though Connecticut has moved away from or failed to successfully emulate county governments, a regional governing body in Hartford can have the authority and centrality to mitigate poverty and fragmentation in the metropolitan area.

Greater Hartford’s need for a formal regional government is largely due to individual municipal governments’ lack of authority. Hartford’s history has seen multiple occasions when local political authority was compromised. In 1868, the Dillon Rule stated that local governments are “mere tenants at will of the legislature,” replacing the Cooley Doctrine that asserted municipalities’ independence of state legislature.[3] This idea of home rule gave states increased leverage over local governments and was officially added to Connecticut’s constitution in Article 10 at the 1965 Constitutional Convention. Though home rule today is that a “city or town has authority under guidelines of the state legislature to frame, adopt, and amend its charter,” it remains a debate as to whether Hartford and other major cities should have special governing authority.[4] Despite such discussions, a power differential obviously exists between state and local governments in contemporary politics.

Consequently, it is crucial for county governments to serve as a buffer between the state and municipalities and between individual cities. Connecticut has not only debated over the authority it should give municipalities, but also transitioned away from formal county governments. When Democrats sought after the governor’s seat and legislative majorities in the 1959 Election, they promised to abolish “inefficient county governments.”[5] As a result of their victory, the city manager and city council’s responsibilities increased without a corresponding increase in authority or financial resources. The authority that once existed in county government was not transferred to municipalities, nor to new regional governing bodies. Such organizations as the Department of Community Affairs, Regional Council of Governments, and Regional Planning Agencies had no authority over local governments. Without truly being above cities in the hierarchy of government, these groups could not fully supplant previous county roles. They were considered so inefficient that Republican Governor Thomas Meskill terminated the Department of Community Affairs 1970 in an effort to reduce state debt. As Hartford saw the repetitive elimination of formal county governments or their substitutes, a mindset of cities being independent of each other began to form.

Nonetheless, there have been more recent efforts to establish regional governing bodies. In fact, 96 organizations seek to work on regional issues.[6] However, these many organizations do not have a single central entity. These organizations additionally lack much of the authority a formal government would have. For instance, the Capitol Region Council of Governments is unable to raise tax revenue or deliver local services, despite being the “best positioned” of such organizations.[7] Though these regional bodies strive to accomplish government work, they are seldom in a comparable position of influence. In other cases, there is resistance against expanding authority in a single organization or one that may give Hartford precedence. The Metropolitan District Commission, for example, has been delivering water and sewer services to the Hartford region since 1929, but has been limited from growth. It is, however, an organization that successfully distributes public services on a regional scale. Currently in the Hartford metro area, education, emergency services, transportation, and other public services lack a central governing authority like the MDC. Simmons said that although sharing resources regionally is ideal, it is much more challenging to execute in social issues such as housing.[8] A single organization or group of organizations, even if not in the form of official county government, must efficiently provide public services to the entire region rather than in individual cities.

Yet, Hartford also saw failed privatization efforts to create a governing body that could alleviate the city’s poverty or find alternative solutions. One such example is the Greater Hartford Process, Inc. and the Greater Hartford Community Development Corporation, which sought to create a new community in Coventry instead of solve urban sprawl in Hartford itself.[9] The project ultimately failed, especially since these private organizations had very limited power to implement ideas. Another failed privatization effort was that of the Bishops, a group of corporates who lived outside Hartford but hoped to influence the city’s aesthetics, residents, and employees. Considering that corporations reaped in three-quarters of municipal property taxes, these men were invested in Hartford’s success despite not being residents. The Bishops had incentives to revive the city economically since their own success depended on it. Nevertheless, tensions between the rich and poor did not disappear. As members of third party “People for Change” were elected to the city council, they created policies that were unfavorable to businesses and partly influenced the movement of headquarters outside of the city.[10]

Considering the Greater Hartford area’s hesitance with county government in the past, it is unlikely that official county offices will be created in the near future. However, this region can learn from mistakes in the past and continue to work towards more effective metropolitan governance. Rojas and Wray state that metropolitan governance can be accomplished without an explicit metropolitan government.[11] Even as the central city in the metropolitan region, Hartford is fixed in poverty and lacks a substantial tax base as a financial resource. Creating a county government, or a governing body that has the authority to collect tax revenue, will increase the tax base from which poorer cities such as Hartford can draw resources. One can argue that tax revenue from suburbs should not be used in an unrelated city. This issue already exists as seen in my experience researching the Metropolitan District Commission’s Clean Water Project last year. West Hartford residents were dissatisfied with the project as expressed in the Hartford Courant due to the redistribution of tax revenue. Opposition often occurs when tax dollars are used for regional projects, but unfortunately it is currently the main financial resource for governments.

Moreover, even though suburban towns often believe otherwise, centralizing many local services could actually prove more efficient. It is unnecessary, for instance, to have more than 104 (one hundred) 911 calling centers in the state.[12] Finding a way to connect already existing organizations to coordinate local services and pull from a more central pool of financial resources could allow Hartford residents to partake in public amenities it could not before.

It cannot be denied that Hartford and its suburbs are interdependent despite the absence of their formal political connection. 83 percent of jobs in the city are filled by suburban residents, and 65 percent of the city’s residents work in the suburbs.[13] People spend time in Hartford, and recognize that it has jobs and opportunities not necessarily available in the suburbs, while the same can be said vice versa. Though Hartford is to some extent an economic center, it is most certainly a political center as the state capital. Thus, the existence (development?) of a central and regional governing body can further establish Hartford as a center.

Since Hartford is the state capital, I fully expected it to be thriving upon applying to Trinity College. I assumed any state capital would have an exciting culture and a diverse metropolis of residents who feel connected to the central city. Once I visited Trinity, however, I found downtown Hartford to be quite the opposite of what I envisioned. On that Saturday, downtown felt deserted, while West Hartford’s Blue Back Square seemed to have more life. At that time, I thought West Hartford and Hartford were the same municipality, but I was also confused by the already visible dichotomy. It was not until I took my first urban studies course that I discovered the lack of any governmental connection between the two cities, other than their being in the state of Connecticut.  Hartford felt and still feels incomplete because of its seeming lack of relevance to surrounding towns.

In order for Hartford to be less impoverished and maximize its role as a central city, a regional government must play a larger role in establishing a larger tax base, providing efficient local services, and creating cohesion between cities in the metropolitan area. Organizations that strive to address regional issues must have the authority to utilize tax revenue and stand in between cities and the state in the hierarchy of government. In cases of privatization, governing entities must consider the needs of the majority of the people instead of profit maximization. Especially considering Hartford’s small size, a regional governing body could figuratively expand its borders and serve as an obvious connection between Hartford and surrounding cities (a good connection to argue). Many of the problems that are thought to plague Hartford—poverty, irrelevance, racial tension, monotony—will not be solved overnight, but a county government or a similar authority can be one of the first steps.