Michigan Law Review
Copyright (c) 2000 Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
98 Mich. L. Rev. 1704
LENGTH: 9555 words
BUILDING COMMUNITY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A POST-INTEGRATIONIST VISION
FOR THE AMERICAN METROPOLIS:
Building Communities without Building Walls. By Gerald E.
Frug. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1999. Pp. ix, 223. $ 35.
Sheryll D. Cashin*
* Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. B.E. 1984,
Vanderbilt; M.A. 1986, Oxford, U.K.; J.D. 1989, Harvard. - Ed. The author would
like to thank Lisa Heinzerling and Florence Roisman for their most helpful
comments and Katrina Lederer for her excellent research assistance.
Frug would revolutionize local government law by premising cities on the image of
"postmodern" self (pp. 73-89, 92-109). ... Thus, for
Frug, the route to a more capacious metropolitanism
is more public freedom at the local level, not less. ...
Frug is unclear about the degree of consensus he would require in order for a
regional legislature to effect a change in local governance, I believe affluent
suburbs will never be willing to negotiate away the degree of power and
influence that they currently wield in metropolitan and state politics. ...
Frug's intellectual project is to endow local government law with a new subjectivity
"one that is decentered [and]... that questions the sharp self/other distinction
that now dominates legal decision making" (p. 65). ...
"The problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line."
When W.E.B. DuBois wrote this prophetic statement at the dawn of the twentieth
century, the American metropolis did not yet exist. Perhaps DuBois could not
have predicted the sprawled, socio-economically fragmented landscape that is so
familiar to the majority of Americans who now live and work in metropolitan
regions. But his prediction of a
"color line" that would sear our consciousness and present the chief social struggle for
the new century proved all too correct. As we contemplate the twenty-first
n2 book, City Making, makes clear that the problem of the color line continues in
the form of local political borders. Local government borders define who gets
what public benefits. They demarcate communities by race and income. They
separate good school districts from bad. And, most importantly, they form the
geographic boundary for local powers that can be wielded by those living within
in ways that can harm those living without.
City Making attacks this problem of borders at its roots. It is an important
book that deserves serious consideration by all who care about democracy and
race relations in America.
Frug analyzes our system of local government law, identifying clearly how the
current structure of city power has
"segregated metropolitan areas into
"two nations,' rich and poor, white and black, expanding and contracting" (p. 4). Undoubtedly,
Frug's analysis will be familiar to those well-
[*1705] acquainted with the legal literature on local governance.
n3 But in the book, he offers fresh insights in a highly readable format that
should be accessible to those unfamiliar with such scholarship.
The problem, as
Frug sees it, is that our current legal conception of the city creates a duality of
city power and city powerlessness, both of which
"undermine the fundamental democratic experience of working with different kinds
of people to find solutions to common problems" (p. 8). Affluent suburban localities benefit from a privatized conception of
local autonomy because the legal system equates suburban local powers with
"the protection of home and family and of private property" (p. 7). By contrast, central cities and older suburbs, saddled with increasing
populations of poor people and attendant demands on their tax base, are
incapable of using local powers in ways that wall out
"undesirables." Thus, as Richard Briffault has argued, only affluent suburbs are truly free to
use local powers in ways that shape their economic destinies.
On the other hand,
Frug chafes at the limits states place on city power. Cities, unlike corporations,
are powerless to pursue fully the collective vision of their citizen-members.
They must rely on enumerated powers conferred by the state, rather than on any
inherent authority to define their goals and powers from within (pp. 8-9). It
is ironic that
Frug is troubled by this subservience of cities to state laws and policies, given
the invitation to self-interest wrought by suburban local autonomy. But he
believes that only by reconceiving cities in a manner that frees them to
negotiate the scope of their powers can the fundamental democratic enterprise
for which cities were created be recaptured.
Frug aims to solve the twinfold problems of local selfishness (city power) and
local subservience (city powerlessness). Proposing
"a local government law for the twenty-first century" (p. 5), he seeks
"to defend a version of city power that does not rely on the notion of local
autonomy" (p. 9). He would reject the vision of cities as something akin to autonomous
individuals or sovereign nation-states -
[*1706] subjects" in the vocabulary of the theoretical literature.
Frug would revolutionize local government law by premising cities on the image of
"postmodern" self (pp. 73-89, 92-109). In other words, he would transform the legal
definition of a city from one that equates city power with the ability to act
like a self-interested individual, in order to account for the fact that no
individual locality within a metropolitan region is an island. It is
necessarily interconnected, in ways profound and minor, to the myriad of other
localities, races, and socio-economic classes that make up the metropolis. By
embracing these interlocal connections as part of the definition of what a city
Frug reasons that local government law would be transformed so as to promote rather
than frustrate regional collaboration on metropolitan problems (p. 10).
In transforming the legal definition of the city,
Frug argues for
"a new role for cities in American life," namely
"community building" (p. 10). By
"community building" he means
"increasing the capacity of all metropolitan residents - African American as
well as white, gay as well as fundamentalist, rich as well as poor - to live in
a world filled with those they find unfamiliar, strange, even offensive" (p. 11). He offers a number of practical suggestions to facilitate this
"being together of strangers" (p. 11). First and foremost, he would create
"a wider public... that would produce a more meaningful experience of public
freedom than is now available in many contemporary suburbs and city
neighborhoods" (p. 22). The chief vehicle for realizing this aspiration would be a regional
legislature through which representatives from disparate communities would
negotiate how power would be exercised by the localities in a given
metropolitan region (pp. 86-87, 162-63). Thus,
Frug imagines that intercity negotiation and compromise, rather than state control,
would best curb local selfishness (p. 63). This reliance on democratic
participation and negotiation, rather than on state-level mandates, is crucial,
Frug believes, to achieving long-term sustainable change. For only if citizens
experience the exercise of city power and the resolution of intercity conflict
will they begin to eschew selfishness (pp. 80-81). Thus, for
Frug, the route to a more capacious metropolitanism
n6 is more public freedom at the local level, not less.
In addition to these central ideas,
Frug offers an extended legal history of cities, underscoring that
"a complex transformation occurred over a period of hundreds of years... that
increasingly narrowed the definition of the city's nature to that of a state
subdivision authorized to solve purely local political problems" (p. 52).
[*1707] offers a number of practical suggestions for how city powers and functions
might be reconstructed in light of his reformulated definition of the city.
n7 In this review, however, I will focus only on
Frug's struggle with the conundrum of city power and powerlessness. In my view, this
struggle is critical because it mirrors the real-world tensions that
metropolitan America must come to terms with if we are to achieve an
equilibrium that bodes well for democracy and race relations in the
There is much that
Frug gets right in this book, particularly his insightful analysis of the impact of
our local governance regime in encouraging and rewarding selfish or
self-maximizing behavior on the part of localities and neighborhoods. I believe
he also is correct to adopt a realistic approach to community building which
accepts that the romantic ideal of community or full integration is not likely
to be achievable. Finally,
Frug is also quite right to acknowledge the sheer difficulty of bringing his vision
""being together of strangers'" to fruition.
That said, I believe
Frug's proposed solutions are misguided because they do not account sufficiently for
the real-world realities of metropolitan politics. In short, enacting the
structural changes he suggests, ab initio, would require the type of coalition
politics that his proposals are designed to foster. Thus, it is unclear how his
proposed reforms would ever come into being. More fundamentally, I believe
effective metropolitanism will require strong regional institutions that wield
some of the power now vested in cities. We may need to reduce the power of
individual cities in order expand the capacity of metropolitan regions to solve
serious problems that transcend local borders.
n9 Finally, although
Frug is unclear about the degree of consensus he
[*1708] would require in order for a regional legislature to effect a change in local
governance, I believe affluent suburbs will never be willing to negotiate away
the degree of power and influence that they currently wield in metropolitan and
But the chief value of
Frug's book is not in his ultimate proposals. Rather, by struggling mightily to
imagine a different legal order from the one so well-entrenched in the American
psyche, he illuminates the possibilities. He persuades the reader that the
existing fragmented metropolitan landscape is not a pure market phenomenon
dictated merely by popular preferences for suburban living. More importantly,
he should convince most readers that a change in legal paradigms is necessary
if we truly value social cohesion and the long-term stability of metropolitan
regions. In my view, there is no more pressing issue for the new millennium.
Under the current system, as the United States becomes more diverse, we are
likely to see an acceleration of existing trends. Gated communities and
homogeneous suburban enclaves that give residents a sense of comfort and
control over their social and economic destinies will continue to proliferate.
In turn, such balkanization of the metropolitan polity is likely to harden
attitudes, entrenching an unfamiliarity and discomfort on the part of all
citizens with anyone who can be described as
"other." As our collective capacity for empathy with persons who are different
subsides, it will become much more difficult to forge coalitions across
boundaries of geography, class and race. It will become much more difficult for
society to solve problems that may require shared sacrifice.
Frug points us in a different direction, offering some hope that we could conceive
and pursue a more positive course.
I. The Theoretical Analysis: Transforming the Legal Conception of the City
The starting point for
Frug's critique is the legal definition of the city. As he established in his seminal
article, The City as a Legal Concept,
n10 courts struggled for several centuries with the question
"whether cities are an exercise of individual freedom or a threat to that freedom" (p. 24).
"The general answer developed by the legal system has been to identify the city
with the state and to conceive of it as a threat to freedom" (p. 24). Early American cities, like medieval European towns, had been
bulwarks against state authority. Like private corporations, they exercised a
degree of self-defined authority based upon values of property, freedom of
association, and self-government (p. 43). By the late nineteenth century,
[*1709] powerlessness was crystallized in legal doctrines, like Dillon's Rule,
n11 that formally rendered cities subject to state authority. As a result,
"cities... lost their economic strength and their connection with the freedom of
association, elements of city life that had formerly enabled cities to play an
important part in the development of Western society" (p. 53).
Frug seeks to resurrect an important mission for cities in American society. His
aim is to reconceive cities in a manner that reestablishes their importance in
the lives of their inhabitants and confers upon them an indispensable place in
American society (p. 55). In
Frug's view, this venture is worthwhile because cities
"offer the possibility of dealing with the problematic nature of group power [in
the American metropolis] by reinvigorating the idea of
"the public'" (p. 60). Much of the book - indeed its most interesting aspect - is dedicated
to exploring what private individuals will gain from the creation of a
broadened public sphere. But a prerequisite to creating this broader public is
a transformation of the concept of the city. We must,
Frug argues, do away with the privatized conception of local autonomy so dear to
many suburbanites. By equating cities with individual, albeit collective,
autonomy, the current legal definition of the city encourages inward-looking
maximization of self-interest and
"fuels a desire to avoid, rather than to engage with, those who live on the
other side of the city line" (p. 62). Local government law thus creates a privatized relationship between
cities: because cities are creatures of the state, their only meaningful
intergovernmental relationship is the one they have with the state. And if a
"seek rents" with the state, what incentive does it have to collaborate with other
localities in the metropolitan region (p. 62)?
Indeed, this is the precise dynamic that is fueling the disaggregation of
wealth and political power from social service needs in the American
metropolis. Frequently, an affluent
"favored quarter" garners the vast majority of its region's economic growth. In addition, these
high-growth quadrants typically receive the majority of the regional public
infrastructure investments - roads, sewers, utility lines, etc. - that fuel
economic growth. At the same time, through the retention of local powers, such
affluent suburbs can avoid taking on any of the region's social service burdens
and can export a substantial portion of the costs of their considerable growth
to other, less affluent localities.
Frug offers a counterintuitive solution to this problem of local selfishness.
Rather than reduce local powers in a way that curbs the ability of cities to
act in selfish ways, his laudatory aspiration is to enhance the ability of all
localities, particularly affluent suburbs, to forge intercity alliances. In a
context of intercity collaboration,
Frug apparently hopes that cities will reach a consensus to define and deploy local
powers in a way that does not harm their neighbors. At minimum, he believes
that society will be better off if we can increase the capacity of localities
"to solve the problems generated by intercity conflict themselves" (p. 63) rather than rely on state mandates.
Frug fully acknowledges the seeming naivete of his vision (p. 19). In essence, he
is asking us to suspend our current conceptions of the limited civic-mindedness
of our neighbors and ourselves. He wants to take us on a journey toward the
possible, if not the ideal. And I believe it is a trip worth making because so
few thinkers are struggling with this question of how to give effect to the
ideal of local (read suburban) self-determination while cultivating a sense of
collective responsibility for the consequences of our individual choices.
To transform the legal concept of the city in a way that achieves the Herculean
feat of promoting intercity collaboration,
Frug deploys the theoretical literature on identity and the self. His aim is to
create a definition of the city imbued with the idea of connection or
"other." In practical terms, he ultimately conceives of the city not as an autonomous
construct, analogous to a sovereign, but as a public entity embedded in a web
of regional interconnections. If such connections are part and parcel of what
it means to be a city, then a city's powers should be defined not by the state
but by the regional community as a whole. I address
Frug's proposal of a regional legislature - the practical consequence of his
theoretical critique - in Part II, below. First, however, I will consider
Frug's use of the theoretical literature in addressing the difficult conundrum of
power dynamics in the metropolis.
Frug's goal is to formulate a definition of the city that will transform the
subjectivity of the city and its residents. The current legal definition is
premised on collective individualism. Moreover, he asserts,
"local government law has endowed these collective individuals with a particular
conception of subjectivity, one that is commonly called a centered sense of self" (p. 64).
Frug challenges this
"centered" subjectivity, with its emphasis on separateness - the distinction of
"other." Local government law has clearly adapted this centered concept of self to
cities, encouraging a
"localism" in which regulation of land use, schools, and tax policy are determined
locally, solely to meet the desires of the residents within a defined
Frug's intellectual project is to endow local government law with a new subjectivity
"one that is decentered [and]... that questions the sharp self/other distinction
that now dominates legal decision making" (p. 65). Drawing on a well-developed theoretical critique of the idea of the
centered self, he underscores that notions of the self are contestable and
subject to multiple interpretations. The idea of distinguishing
"other" presupposes that there is an identifiable
"self" that is clearly distinguishable from other persons and influences. Yet the
literature on the centered subject rejects the notion of a stable identity for
the self. In doing so, it offers up other possibilities for the subjectivity of
Frug takes this cue, formulating two possible alternatives for
"a new subjectivity for localities in local government law": the
"situated self" and the
"postmodern self" (p. 69).
Canvassing the work of thinkers as disparate as Carol Gilligan,
n14 Michael Sandel,
n15 and Frank Michelman,
Frug finds several sources for the idea of the
"situated self." The situated subject, like the person who is born into but does not choose her
family, is inextricably bound by a number of involuntary associations.
Similarly, like it or not, cities and suburbs are inextricably entangled. A
depressed urban core constitutes a drag on the economic vitality of outer-ring
suburbs, just as a vital urban core enhances their fiscal health.
Frug suggests, the
"self/other" dichotomy simply does not fit the empirical reality of metropolitan economies,
which operate as a region-wide system. Thus, local government law errs in
"insider/outsider framework of the centered subject" (p. 79).
Nowhere is this embrace of the centered subject more pronounced than in the law
of zoning. A handful of forward-thinking state supreme courts and legislatures
have mandated some form of affordable
[*1712] housing requirement that might be understood to be premised on a regional
construction of local identity.
n18 But the vast majority of state courts and legislatures have taken their cue
from the U.S. Supreme Court, envisioning zoning as a matter of purely local
n19 Thus, local communities are free to pursue their collective vision of the
highest and best use of land, which typically results in the elevation of the
single-family home over all other uses.
n20 By contrast, a transformation of the law of zoning that would give effect to
the image of the situated self would require zoning policies to be
"worked out not centrally or by each municipality alone but through regional
negotiations" (p. 80). Consistent with civic republican thought, this new, situated self
would be formed through dialogue. Dialogue is crucial in the republican
tradition because it views identity as politically constructed. In the words of
""feelings and ideas are renewed, the heart enlarged, and understanding
developed... only by reciprocal action of men one upon another.'"
Frug is fierce in his devotion to this functional role of dialogue in altering
citizen consciousness, he also recognizes just how difficult it will be to
bring about doctrinal changes that reflect a new subjectivity of the situated
subject. This is so because:
current law not only has fragmented the metropolitan area but [it] is
perpetuated by the kind of person this fragmentation has nurtured. The problem
with implementing [regional] reforms is the power of this status quo. A central
government's attempt to change it would be experienced by the people who
benefit from it as an astonishing invasion of their personal freedom. Yet it is
unlikely that those who profit from current law will undo it themselves. How,
then, can centered subjects ever come to embrace a vision of themselves as
decentered, as interdependent? [p. 80]
Frug's hope is that the suburban inclination to self-protection will be broken down
by organizing regional negotiations in such a way that there are negative
consequences of failing to reach agreement and by exploiting the fact that some
suburban sub-groups - for example,
[*1713] women, the elderly - may have special positive incentives for forging a
regional alliance (pp. 81, 154-61).
An alternative subjectivity
Frug explores is that of the
"postmodern self." Drawing on literature that extends the critique of the centered self,
including postmodernism, feminism, and critical race theory, he defines the
"postmodern condition" of the American metropolis. Postmodern subjects experience living in the world
without any core sense of self. Unlike situated subjects, who see
interconnections as a positive way of defining their identity, postmodern
"deny themselves [the solace of interconnectedness], this hope of bringing the
mysterious hidden core of the self to the surface and sharing it with others" (p. 94). Thus, for the postmodern subject,
"relationship with others - and with the world at large - is an experience not
of consensus... but of conflicting multiplicities" (p. 94).
A postmodern conception of localities, then, would envision people as being
located not on one side or the other of a city/suburban border, but at
"nodal points of specific communication circuits spread throughout the
[metropolitan] area" (p. 97; citations omitted). Under this vision, the metropolis is
"a hodgepodge of elements - shopping/office/hotel complexes, strip shopping
malls, industrial parks, office buildings, department stores, neighborhoods,
subdivisions, condominium communities - that is
"impossible to comprehend,'
"vertigo-inducing'" (p. 99). As they live, work, shop and play, citizens of the metropolis cross
local jurisdictional boundaries on a daily basis, often without awareness of
such boundaries. To borrow a phrase coined by Michael Sorkin,
n23 the postmodern American metropolis is an
""ageographical city'" (p. 100). Best typified by Los Angeles, the ageographical city is a
"pastiche of highways, skyscrapers, malls, housing developments, and chain
"endless urban landscape of copies without an original - that constitute the
place bites... of modern America" (p. 100). In short, it is the urban physical equivalent of the 800-number, an
area code that is not tied to any particular place (p. 100).
To adapt local government law to this postmodern subjectivity,
Frug argues that we must stop building doctrine on residency and should
de-emphasize local jurisdictional boundaries. We must recognize that people are
not located solely in one place, but that they move daily through a variety of
networks of influence that affect their lives (p. 102). Rather than relying
solely upon residency within a city limit
[*1714] to determine a person's legal rights, a postmodern subjectivity would
transform local government law. Eligibility for voting and our system of local
government financing, for example, would no longer depend on physical residency
within a city's limits (p. 102). In particular,
Frug argues that the difficult problem of interlocal tax-base inequity - the
concentration of tax-base wealth in outer suburbs and of revenue needs in the
urban core - would be remedied by a local government law that embraced the
postmodern subject (pp. 104-05). This new subjectivity could form the
theoretical basis for a regional system of revenue sharing and service
entitlement. And, in
Frug's view, it offers a
"most promising source of ideas for changing the present-day allocation of power
in metropolitan areas" (p. 106). One possible avenue to achieving this new subjectivity would be
through a revised model of voter representation.
Frug suggests, for example, that each citizen of the metropolis be accorded five
votes that they can cast in whatever local elections they feel affect their
n24 In this manner, he reasons, elected representatives would view themselves as
having constituents throughout the region (p. 106).
In Part II below, I address some of the practical difficulties of effecting
doctrinal changes premised on these alternative subjectivities of the locality.
Despite these practical difficulties,
Frug's enterprise has value in boldly challenging the dominant thinking on local
government organization. Most importantly, he has eloquently sketched
possibilities for basing local government law on something other than the
freely autonomous individual. He admits that there may be other subjectivities,
but he finds the images of the situated and postmodern subjects most attractive
and he feels no compulsion to choose between the two. Both visions, he argues,
stimulate alternative thinking. They both reject the centered subject's focus
on boundaries and seek
"to build a form of metropolitan life in which people across the region learn to
recognize, and make policy on the basis of, their interactions with each other" (p. 111). The beauty of these constructs is that they negotiate the conundrum
of city power and powerlessness without doing violence to the near-sacred value
Frug offers a revolutionary vision premised on interconnectedness that leaves
individuals with the necessary comfort of a local community, which they can
select and shape based upon individual preferences. Those who want to live in
communities of like preferences, race, income, etc., may do so (within the
limits of anti-discrimination law). But they cannot do so without dealing with
people from other communities.
[*1715] In this sense, both the situated and postmodern subjectivities of local
"are postintegration visions of America: integration remains possible, but is no
longer a master goal" (p. 111).
Whether or not you accept the viability of these alternative visions,
considering them seriously frees you to imagine possibilities other than the
current legal order. They illuminate the ways in which the core incentive
structure of the current legal regime - untethered pursuit of social and
economic self-interest - might be different. And in doing so, they undermine
the logic of the existing system.
Frug is right to suggest that we need much more in the way of a public space to
discuss these issues if centuries of entrenched popular, legal, and academic
thinking are to be reversed. While I am not in agreement with all of his
ultimate proposals, I believe he has offered a powerful case for reconceiving
the legal system of local governance so as to appeal to the better angels of
our nature. In Part III below, I accept
Frug's challenge to imagine a different order, by suggesting an alternative
"post-integrationist" vision for metropolitan governance that I believe fits better with the
realities of metropolitan power dynamics.
Frug's Proposed Solution - Community Building and the Unreality of Negotiated
Frug's chief vehicle for realizing his vision of a new, decentered subjectivity for
American localities is a regional legislature. He would shift the power to
define the legal authority of cities from the state government to this new
regional entity. But he rejects decidedly the idea of a regional government
that would exercise supra-local powers. Instead, he proposes a regional,
democratically elected body that would take on one specific function now
performed by state legislatures and courts:
"defining the power - specifying what lawyers call the legal entitlements - of
local governments" (p. 86). Examples of the types of entitlements this new legislature might
allocate include the extent to which individual localities must accommodate
regional affordable housing needs, the portion of local tax revenues that can
be used exclusively for local schools, and the incentives a locality will be
allowed to offer a business from a neighboring jurisdiction to entice it to
move across the border (p. 86). The regional legislature would have the power
to determine what entitlement questions it can decide. But this would differ
from a regional government because, once an entitlement was defined, the local
governments would exercise the resulting authority, not the regional
legislature. To enhance the possibility of meaningful interlocal compromise,
Frug proposes that representatives be elected at the neighborhood level.
n25 Thus, the various subgroups
[*1716] that make up an individual locality would participate in negotiations. Because
no city could achieve its specific entitlement goals without convincing fellow
legislators of the wisdom of its vision of decentralization,
Frug argues, the brute objective of parochial self-interest would necessarily give
way to a broader understanding of the purpose of local powers (p. 87).
Frug's central objective of community building would be achieved, he imagines, by
giving the metropolis this much-needed regional forum for negotiating how land
use and other powers will be exercised. He would enhance the chance for success
of such interlocal negotiations by causing failure to agree to result in no
local powers on the given issue. In the realm of zoning, for example,
"unless an entitlement to do so results from intercity negotiation, no city
should have the right to zone in a way that excludes
"undesirables,' or to foster development favoring its residents over outsiders" (p. 163). He acknowledges that interlocal negotiation is not likely to result
in a uniform distribution of races and classes of people or of commercial
development throughout the metropolitan region. Instead, as in those few places
in the United States that have strong regional governance structures,
n26 a central focus for a regional legislature is likely to be the proper
allocation of tax revenues generated by new development, wherever its location.
Even if such negotiations fail, as well they might,
Frug argues that the process of negotiation would be valuable because
"there is little doubt that the retention of existing state-granted entitlements
without the establishment of a regional negotiation process will produce more
and more fragmentation and dispersal" (p. 164). At minimum, he argues, such negotiations might begin to mount
political pressure to reverse federal and state policies that support and
encourage metropolitan fragmentation.
Frug's aspiration to promote community building through the creation of a wider
public seems correct, I believe his insistence on intercity negotiation, as
opposed to state-created mandates, is misguided. At the outset, one problem
with his regional legislature proposal is that the political will to create it
does not exist. Such a regional reform, in itself, presupposes the type of
coalition politics, or
[*1717] situated subjectivity, that the regional legislature is designed to engender.
In short, in order for
Frug's proposal to gain passage in a state legislature, as would be required, a
majority of the localities (or their representatives in the state legislature)
would have to agree to submit their existing state-created entitlements to the
uncertainties of a regional negotiation. This is unlikely to happen because, as
Frug admits, the fragmented system wrought by the existing local government regime
has nurtured the
"centered" citizen. Indeed, socio-economic and racial differentiation, and the desire to
escape the tax burdens of the central city were the prime reasons behind the
formation of most new suburban localities in the past five decades.
n27 And the majority of voters now live in and have been shaped by these suburban
But even assuming that
Frug is offering his legislative model merely as an intellectual idea designed to
stimulate thinking about how to promote community building, I believe his
conceptual theory is also misguided.
Frug's fundamental premise appears to be that the
"centered" citizen or the
"centered" locality cannot be transformed to embrace a broader subjectivity while also
experiencing a loss of power. He views city powerlessness - the city's
subordination to the state in terms of its legal powers - as antithetical to
the creation of a broader public realm that might enhance possibilities for
intercity collaboration. In his view, state institutions are too removed from
the citizen to enable a meaningful experience of public life, or, to use his
"public freedom" (p. 22). He has a similar view of regional governments; only when government
powers are wielded at the local level does the citizen truly feel empowered to
influence government policy (pp. 80-81). And only in this manner can the
citizen experience the give-and-take that de Tocqueville and civic republicans
view as necessary for expanding the citizen's heart and perspective.
[*1718] But virtually all serious regional reforms that have been undertaken in the
United States have been enacted by a state legislature, either as the result of
a state court mandate, or a rare political mandate created by a coalition of
metropolitan interest groups.
n30 As Richard Briffault has argued, one will search in vain for examples of
significant regional cooperation or burden-sharing that is not state-mandated.
n31 And this is not surprising, as
Frug so powerfully underscores, given the centered subjectivity engendered by the
current system. However, as I describe below in Part III, I think the
possibilities for future, voluntary metropolitan cooperation in those few
metropolitan areas that have relied on state processes to create strong
regional institutions (at the expense of local powers), has been dramatically
enhanced. Indeed, these areas are much farther along than the rest of the
country in promoting a regional or
"decentered" identity among their citizens.
In sum, relying on interlocal, negotiated compromise to break out of the status
quo of entrenched self-interest is likely to be unsuccessful. Yet, the emerging
regionalist models in the United States suggest that the ideals
Frug strives for can be achieved to some degree. The means to these ends, however,
will have to be different. Most importantly, in order to achieve the ideal of
community-building - enhancing the ability of the citizens of the metropolis to
work with each other across jurisdictional boundaries of race and class -
proposals for reform must be informed by the empirical realities of
III. An alternative Vision: Revitalized Democracy and Warring Factions in the
Frug acknowledges that in addition to the
"postmodern" self, there might be other alternatives to the subjectivity of the
"centered" self. Likewise, his reconstructed understanding of the city and its role in
promoting community building also has alternatives. Rather than permitting the
continuation of fairly homogenous localities while calling upon them to
negotiate and compromise via a regional legislature, one could imagine a
state-level mandate to reduce homogeneity. Of course, this is anathema to the
ideal of self-determinative local autonomy or city power. But imagine, for a
moment, what the American metropolis would be like if poor people, particularly
the minority poor, were more evenly dispersed throughout the region.
[*1719] By distributing the fiscal obligations attendant to housing the poor more
evenly, the urban core would enjoy more of the fruits of their local powers. In
other words, they would have a more meaningful opportunity to use their local
powers in ways that meet their citizens' preferences because they would be
freed, to some degree, from the often extreme economic constraints that come
with having a disproportionate share of the region's service burdens. In turn,
affluent suburbs would no longer enjoy the extreme comparative advantage of
being able to garner much of the region's economic activity and wealth while
walling out virtually all of the social costs and burdens that exist in the
region. The region as a whole would be put on a more stable economic course.
n33 Further, a concrete
"being together of strangers" would be achieved because every community would have its share of low-income
(and minority) persons.
This vision constitutes an integrationist ideal, which has not been achieved
anywhere in the United States, and which is not likely to happen. Even in New
Jersey, the state that has most systematically attacked the problem of
fair-share affordable housing, the results in terms of integration of
low-income and minority persons into suburbs have been disappointing.
n34 The reason this vision will likely remain a chimera in the United States is
complex. At least two oppositional forces are at work. First, there is fierce
political opposition from citizens who want to protect property values and fear
the economic consequences of living near low-income people. Obviously, racism
and classism are also a part of this political opposition.
n35 But the economic incentives alone would lead many, if not most, persons to
oppose economic integration of their neighborhoods. Put in a more positive
Frug suggests, there is also a widespread desire among all groups, including
minority groups, to live in neighborhoods that create a
"we" feeling (pp. 163-64). Second, our nation's sustained ideological commitment
[*1720] to local powers has cloaked the idea of local self-determination in the
trappings of individual rights. In the mind of a new suburban property owner,
there is likely not much difference between the right to exclude undesired
persons from her own property and the right of her and her neighbors to
collectively determine what kind of community they are going to live in, i.e.,
who should and should not live there.
Thus, an integrationist ideal for the American metropolis is a political
n37 That said, I believe there are other alternative models that have a better
chance of achieving
Frug's vision of a
"being together of strangers" than the interlocal negotiation model he offers. In the Twin Cities, for
example, a political majority in the state legislature was forged among
representatives of the urban core - the central cities and older, inner-ring
suburbs. This coalition has succeeded over a period of years in enacting a
number of regional reforms that reduce interlocal economic disparities. Their
legislative victories include laws mandating regional fair-share affordable
housing, regional tax-base sharing, and an enhanced regional governance
structure - the Metropolitan Council - which administers a $ 600 million budget
and sets the direction for land use, transportation and other policies in the
Twin Cities area.
n38 As a result of such reforms, interlocal tax-base disparities in the region
have been reduced substantially, and the region has in place an established
forum for deliberating on regional issues - i.e., for addressing the negative
externalities that result from unchecked, self-interested local decisionmaking.
The primary impetus for the extensive grassroots coalition that has been
created in the Twin Cities area is regional inequity. In particular, coalition
organizers harnessed the self-interest - the centered subjectivity if you will
- of citizens and leaders of the older suburbs, making them realize that they,
like the central cities, were also losing in the regional competition for
public investments that fuel growth. Once leaders like Jesse Ventura - then the
mayor of an older, declining
[*1721] suburb - realized that an affluent, favored quarter was garnering more than
60% of the region's public infrastructure investments and the urban core was
subsidizing the outmigration of people and jobs to this quadrant, they were
more than willing to join a coalition for legislative change.
But this is brute politics, not a civic republican ideal. Affluent suburban
communities, that were going to be net contributors under tax-base sharing and
were going to have to open their communities to affordable housing, were vocal,
strenuous, and sometimes ugly in their opposition to such measures.
n39 In short, democracy was reinvigorated, but, as with all democratic processes,
there were dissenting voices that ultimately had some proposals imposed upon
them. In this case, however, the political losers were the most privileged and
advantaged of communities - communities that had the fewest barriers to
effective participation in state and federal political processes and that were
benefitting disproportionately from the existing regime of local governance.
There are other avenues to meaningful interlocal coordination and
collaboration, if not a fairer distribution of benefits and burdens, in the
American metropolis. Recently, the issue of uncontrolled suburban growth and
its impact on quality of life has fueled a groundswell of state and local
initiatives designed to better manage and coordinate local land use. In the
Atlanta metropolitan region, for example, the Georgia state legislature
recently created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority - a new regional
entity that will have broad powers
"to impose transit systems and highways on local governments, [to] restrict
development, and even [to] put pressure on cities and counties to raise taxes."
n41 The new Authority will have effective veto power over any new development
proposed by a locality that is in an overly congested area or that does not
have adequate transportation routes. The Authority will also have power to
withhold certain state funds to any locality that refuses to participate in
planned regional transportation projects, like new rail, bus, or carpool lane
n42 This state usurpation of local powers was precipitated by an air pollution and
traffic congestion crisis that, in turn, was wrought by fragmented local
authority in the 13-county Atlanta area. Because of
[*1722] years of squabbling and competition among scores of local governments for
development, the region had never been able to agree on a regional plan for
growth and mass transit. Consequently, the region had been rendered ineligible
for federal funds because of record violations of federal air pollution
n43 In addition, the predominately white outer counties long opposed expansion of
MARTA, Atlanta's rail transport system, because of their fear of a connection
to the predominantly black central city.
In both the Twin Cities and the Atlanta scenarios, citizens were able to
overcome the problem of
"centered" subjectivity or parochial self-interest through an education process that
formed cross-border political coalitions based upon a more enlightened
understanding of their self-interest. A civic dialogue did occur that focused
upon objective evidence of fiscal inequities or the negative externalities -
air pollution and traffic congestion - wrought by uncoordinated growth. This
process harnessed and re-energized region-wide majoritarian politics. But these
efforts would not have been successful had the regional majority - the
two-thirds of the population that live in the central city and older suburbs
n45 - not had a supra-local forum to go to that could impose mandates on
Hence, under both of these regionalist scenarios, local powers were reduced but
the ability of the region to solve difficult problems that transcend local
borders was dramatically enhanced. These scenarios demonstrate that we need
pressure points beyond mere negotiation to overcome affluent suburban hegemony.
The rewards of selfishness are simply too great, at least for some powerful
But this loss of local power, particularly by dissenting localities, does not
sacrifice the community-building ideal so dear to
Frug and others. My
"post-integrationist" vision for the twenty-first century metropolis is premised on a revitalization
of grassroots democratic processes. The citizens of the metropolis must
collectively decide whether and how they will pursue a regional agenda. In my
view, the emerging issues of fiscal inequity and sustainable development will
provide an impetus for many to act. Enactment of strong regional reforms,
however, will take place only after the creation of a broad coalition of
disparate interests that is now all too rare in metropolitan America. Thus,
this process of building coalitions for regional reform will necessarily build
[*1723] More importantly, if the majority of citizens has coalesced to create new
regional institutions with supra-local powers, this does not mean that a
"decentered" identity can never be cultivated among dissenting communities. The experience
in New Jersey with state mandates of fair-share affordable housing, although
not ideal, suggests that recalcitrant communities have adjusted to the mandate.
n46 Just as many segregationists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the
second Reconstruction wrought by Brown v. Board of Education,
n47 regionalism may be a movement in the next century that upsets long-settled
expectations created by legal doctrine. In the end, my vision is not dissimilar
Frug's. It is, however, less idealistic. It is premised on gritty democratic realities
and an understanding of the entrenched attitudes that disenfranchise the urban
core under the existing regime of local governance.
City Making offers a revolutionary vision for the twenty-first century. If our
nation were able to realize it, our society would be much better off because
the prospects for social cohesion would be greatly enhanced. The problems with
the book stem both from its inattention to real-world realities and its fierce
adherence to the values fueling localist ideology. The civic republican ideal -
the belief that local institutions best cultivate citizens and community -
borders on romanticism when compared to the manner in which fragmented local
authority is disenfranchising many citizens of the metropolis. In the absence
of strong regional institutions that enable the metropolis to give effect to
majoritarian regional consensus, fragmented localities may remain gridlocked
and interlocal inequities may persist or accelerate. In such circumstances, it
will matter little to a citizen that she might be able to influence her own
local government, given that this government will be powerless to address
certain issues - like traffic congestion, air pollution, and suburban job
access - that greatly impact her life.
In light of this reality, I do not believe
Frug makes a persuasive case for why reliance on state institutions to define and
perhaps circumscribe local authority is necessarily an inappropriate route to
metropolitanism. If revitalized grassroots democracy is the vehicle for
achieving changes in state-defined allocations of power, the enhanced
[*1724] public realm that is
Frug's ultimate goal will have been achieved. Given the often extreme injustices
currently being visited upon many citizens of the American metropolis, I
believe the end is more important than the means. Yet,
Frug has made a powerful case for how we might give effect to the values
undergirding local autonomy while pursuing a brave new course for the
collective greater good. He has laid down the markers for a debate that will
become increasingly central in the next century. So let the new century and the
n1. W.E. Burghardt Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk vii (3d ed. 1903).
Frug is the Samuel R. Rosenthal Professor of Law at Harvard University.
n3. See Gerald E.
Frug, The City as a Legal Concept,
93 Harv. L. Rev. 1057 (1980) [hereinafter
Frug, Legal Concept]; Jerry
Frug, Decentering Decentralization,
60 U. Chi. L. Rev. 253 (1993); Jerry
Frug, The Geography of Community,
48 Stan. L. Rev. 1047 (1996); Jerry
Frug, City Services,
73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 23 (1998). See also Richard Briffault, Our Localism: Part I - The Structure of Local
90 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1990) [hereinafter Briffault, Our Localism: Part I]; Richard Briffault, Our
Localism: Part II - Localism and Legal Theory,
90 Colum. L. Rev. 346 (1990) [hereinafter Briffault, Our Localism: Part II]; Richard Briffault, The Local
Government Boundary Problem in Metropolitan Areas,
48 Stan. L. Rev. 1115 (1996) [hereinafter Briffault, Local Government Boundary Problem]; Sheryll D. Cashin,
Localism, Self-Interest, and the Tyranny of the Favored Quarter: Addressing the
Barriers to New Regionalism, 88 Geo. L.J. (forthcoming July 2000, on file with
author); Richard Thompson Ford, The Boundaries of Race: Political Geography in
107 Harv. L. Rev. 1841 (1994); Georgette C. Poindexter, Collective Individualism: Deconstructing the Legal
145 U. Pa. L. Rev. 607 (1997).
n4. See Briffault, Our Localism: Part II, supra note 3, at 355, 408.
n5. See, e.g., id. at 444-45 (describing the localist definition of cities as
"individuals" with strictly defined boundaries and a limited range of issues that concern
n6. Throughout this review I use
"metropolitanism" to mean an ability of citizens of the metropolis to be with, collaborate with,
and support one another.
n7. In the final part of the book, for example,
Frug offers an alternative way of understanding and organizing the delivery of city
services, including education and police policies, that rejects a
"consumer-oriented" model premised on residency and individual tastes. Instead, he offers a number
"to transform city services into vehicles for community building." P. 175.
n8. P. 116 (quoting Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference
n9. Such regionalist proposals have been suggested by a number of policy writers
and advocates. See, e.g., Anthony Downs, New Visions for Metropolitan America
(1994) (advocating metropolitan-wide cooperation); Myron Orfield,
Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability 11-12 (1997)
(advocating, inter alia, regional fair housing, property tax-base sharing, land
use planning and growth management, public works and transportation reform, and
an elected metropolitan coordinating structure); Neal R. Peirce, Citistates
(1993) (arguing for regional approaches to economic development, environmental
concerns, transportation, and other issues); David Rusk, Inside Game / Outside
Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America 147, 327-33 (1999)
(advocating regional land use planning, tax-base sharing, and
"social housing"); David Rusk, Cities Without Suburbs (2d ed. 1995) (advocating annexation and
regional governance); Anthony Downs, Ecosystem: Suburban, Inner City, J. Prop.
Mgmt., Nov./Dec. 1997, at 60 (advocating regional governance and tax-base
Frug, Legal Concept, supra note 3.
n11. Seeking to protect private property against abuse by local majorities and
against abuse by private economic power, John Dillon, in his 1872 treatise on
municipal corporations, advocated strict state control of cities. Pp. 45-46
(citing John Dillon, Treatise on the Law of Municipal Corporations (1st ed.
n12. For an extensive exploration of the power dynamics and public investment
patterns in U.S. metropolitan regions and the manner in which our system of
local governance contributes to the phenomenon, see Cashin, supra note 3.
n13. For an eloquent, persuasive treatment on the manner in which local government
law doctrine, as developed by courts and legislatures, promotes an
"ideology" of localism, see Briffault, Our Localism: Part I, supra note 3, at 113 ("Local autonomy is to a considerable extent the result of and reinforced by a
systemic belief in the social and political value of local decision making."). See generally Briffault, Our Localism: Part II, supra note 3.
n14. See Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (1982).
n15. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982).
n16. See Frank Michelman, Law's Republic,
97 Yale L.J. 1493 (1988); Frank Michelman, The Supreme Court, 1985 Term Foreword: Traces of
100 Harv. L. Rev. 4 (1986).
n17. Cf. Larry C. Ledebur
& William R. Barnes, National League of Cities, City Distress, Metropolitan
Disparities and Economic Growth 14 (1992) (maintaining that metropolitan areas
with greater than average income disparities between central cities and outer
suburbs sustained net declines in employment growth, while those with less than
average income disparities had modest employment growth); H.V. Savitch et al.,
Ties That Bind: Central Cities, Suburbs, and the New Metropolitan Region, 7
Econ. Dev. Q. 341, 343-44 (1993) (analyzing income data for 59 metropolitan
areas and concluding that areas with higher central city income levels have
higher suburban income levels).
n18. See Cashin, supra note 3 (manuscript at 45-46
& n.256, on file with author) (citing legislative and judicial examples from New
Jersey, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut).
n19. See, e.g., Bernard K. Ham, Exclusionary Zoning and Racial Segregation: A
Reconsideration of the Mount Laurel Doctrine,
7 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 577 (1997) (pointing out the historical and current power localities have had over zoning
decisions); Shelley Ross Saxer, Local Autonomy or Regionalism?: Sharing the
Benefits and Burdens of Suburban Commercial Development,
30 Ind. L. Rev. 659 (1997) (enumerating the problems caused by the great deal of power over zoning that
localities in most states possess).
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 394 (1926) (offering a nuisance rationale for allowing the Village to use local zoning
powers to segregate
"parasitic" apartment houses from single-family homes).
n21. P. 80 (citing Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America 515 (George Lawrence
trans., Doubleday 1969)).
Frug argues, for example, that women and the elderly are especially impacted by
suburban fragmentation, inter alia, because of the isolation, traffic
congestion, and limited transportation options wrought by fragmented sprawl.
n23. See Michael Sorkin, Introduction: Variations on a Theme Park in Variations on
a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space xi (Michael
Sorkin ed., 1992).
n24. A similar proposal has been suggested by Richard Ford. See Ford, supra note 3,
& n.221. See also Lani Guinier, The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental
Fairness in Republican Democracy 149 (1994) (suggesting a system of
"cumulative voting" whereby each person would have a number of votes to distribute among elective
candidates and arguing that such a system would give minorities more sway over
who is elected, while preserving the overall system of majority rule).
n25. This neighborhood-based version of representation is offered to give effect to
the subjectivity of the
Frug would modify the regional legislature proposal to accommodate the image of the
postmodern self by giving individual citizens the opportunity to vote for up to
five candidates from any jurisdiction (or nodal point) that reflects their
interests. P. 106.
n26. The Twin Cities, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington regions
are among the few that have a metropolitan entity that sets the direction for
land use, transportation, and other policies for their regions. Regional
cooperation in these metropolitan areas has reduced or mitigated interlocal
disparities of tax-base and rendered the urban core more viable. See, e.g.,
Arthur C. Nelson
& Jeffrey H. Milgroom, Regional Growth Management and Central-City Vitality:
Comparing Development Patterns in Atlanta, Georgia, and Portland, Oregon, in
Urban Revitalization (Fritz W. Wagner et al. eds., 1995). For an extended
survey of existing regional governance arrangements in the United States, see
Cashin, supra note 3 (manuscript at 42-44
& n.244, 48-49, on file with author).
n27. See Nancy Burns, The Formation of American Local Governments: Private Values
in Public Institutions 75-95 (1994); Gregory R. Weiher, The Fractured
Metropolis 13-15 (1991).
n28. See Rusk, supra note 9, at 5. Older, inner-ring suburbs, however, have more in
common both economically and demographically with central cities than with
outer-ring developing suburbs. See Orfield, supra note 9, at 4. This fact has
been the key to broad intercity coalition-building in the Twin Cities area. See
infra Part III.
n29. See, e.g., Tocqueville, supra note 21, at 515. Several other local government
scholars, including Georgette Poindexter and Richard Thompson Ford, also adhere
to this logic and hence feel compelled to eschew solutions to metropolitan
fragmentation that involve state-imposed mandates. See Ford, supra note 3, at
1908-09 (arguing that regional administration makes it difficult for
politically engaged communities to form because it alienates citizens from the
decisionmaking process); Poindexter, supra note 3, at 625; see also Cass R.
Sunstein, Beyond the Republican Revival,
97 Yale L.J. 1539, 1556 (1988) (stating the civic republican view that deliberation and collective
self-determination most naturally occur through small, localized units of
n30. See generally Cashin, supra note 3 (manuscript at 45-46, 48-49, on file with
author). The New Jersey Supreme Court's seminal Mt. Laurel decision and the
Minnesota State legislature's series of regional reforms on behalf of the Twin
Cities are the prime examples of state court and legislative mandates
respectively. See id.
n31. See Briffault, Local Government Boundary Problem, supra note 3, at 1156.
n32. African-American poverty is more highly concentrated than white and Hispanic
poverty. In 1997, 58% of African Americans living in poverty resided within
central cities, while 24% lived in suburban areas. See Bureau of Labor
Statistics and Bureau of the Census, Annual Demographic survey, March
Supplement, Table Four (1998) (visited March 12, 2000)
<http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/031998/pov/4<uscore>001.htm> (placing the remaining 18% in predominantly rural areas). 56% of Hispanics
living in poverty resided in central cities and 33% lived in the suburbs. See
id. (placing the remaining 11% in rural areas). 35% of non-Hispanic whites
living in poverty lived in central cities and 39% lived in the suburbs. See id.
(placing 26% in rural areas).
n33. For an extended explanation of the way in which the current system of local
governance weakens the economies of central cities and older suburbs while
strengthening the economies of affluent outer-ring suburbs, see Cashin, supra
n34. See id. (manuscript at 45-46, on file with author) (noting that the largest
and most comprehensive study of the impact of the Mt. Laurel decision found
"Mt. Laurel" housing units produced were primarily for moderate, not low-income households,
that over 80% of suburban units went to white households, and that over 80% of
urban units went to black and Latino households).
n35. See supra text accompanying note 27.
n36. See, e.g., Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the
United States 241 (1985) (describing
"economic and racial homogeneity" as
"perhaps [the] most important characteristic of the postwar suburb....").
n37. I raise the integrationist vision for consideration, however, because I
believe it underscores just how much we as a society have lost after over a
"localism." Notably, American cities were fairly integrated racially and economically at
the dawn of the twentieth century. In 1900, African Americans in urban areas
generally lived in areas that were 90% white. See
Frug, The Geography of Community, supra note 3, at 1064. I mourn the loss of the
integrationist ideal because I believe it represented the best route to equal
opportunity and intergroup understanding for our country. I accept, however,
the politics that make it fairly unrealistic as an option. But we should
continue to be vigorous in fighting discrimination in housing markets and in
eliminating barriers to residential mobility for all citizens.
n38. See generally Cashin, supra note 3 (manuscript at 48-49, on file with author)
(describing the Twin Cities' experience in detail).
n39. See generally Orfield, supra note 9, at 13. In one instance, an angry mob of
suburban residents occupied the city council chambers in protest of a planned
low-income housing development in their neighborhood. See id. at 127-28.
n40. See generally Cashin, supra note 3 (manuscript at 19-24, on file with author)
(citing empirical evidence of the degree of public investment in affluent
suburbs and the extent of cross-subsidization from which they benefit).
n41. David Firestone, Georgia Setting Up Tough Anti-Sprawl Agency, N.Y. Times, Mar.
25, 1999, at A20.
n42. See id.
n43. See id.
n44. See Urban Sprawl: To Traffic Hell and Back, The Economist, May 8, 1999, at 23.
n45. Approximately one-third of the metropolitan population lives in the central
city, inner-suburbs and outer suburbs, respectively. See Orfield, supra note 9,
at 12-13. The key to metropolitan coalition building in the next century will
be building closer political alliances between the central city and older
suburbs. See id. at 168-69.
n46. See Charles M. Haar, Suburbs Under Siege: Race, Space, and Audacious Judges
188-89 (1996) (noting that
"almost all localities in New Jersey have institutionalized planning for
moderate-and low-income dwelling units" and that the Mount Laurel mandates
"make the local process of considering [regional] housing needs a common routine
that stands as a new norm in the political... process").
347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Prepared: January 24, 2003 - 5:02:29 PM
Edited and Updated, January 25, 2003
Kristen A. Stelljes