USA Today discusses the rise of private cities in a fascinating article today. [all italic emphasis below mine]
“These fast-growing unincorporated areas reflect a national shift toward turning some government functions over to private companies and away from multiple layers of government. For people in these areas, becoming a traditional city is unnecessary.”
“As development builds outside cities, areas that have no legacy of municipal government are thriving without becoming cities. They have many qualities cities have: large populations, busy commercial centers, sprawling subdivisions. But they’re not cities. There’s no mayor. Residents can’t fight city hall because there isn’t one.”
“Prominent or obscure, many non-cities are governed by the strict bylaws of homeowners’ associations. Others, like Paradise, grew out of a strong business base such as gambling and tourism. Most have no desire to add another layer of government, pay extra taxes and provide their own services — even if that would mean a stronger urban identity.”
“Strong private governments. In communities that were barren desert or rural farmland before developers built thousands of houses, homeowners’ associations rule. They establish covenants that regulate the appearance and lifestyle of the new subdivision. They collect homeowners’ dues to pay for private roads, landscaping, lighting and sometimes trash pickup.“
The article claims that “For communities to survive without municipal government, they must be in counties that can provide essential public services effectively.” More specifically the article cites, “...essential public services, from water and schools to police and fire protection. ” One wonders why these cities can’t privately provide waters, schools, police and fire protection if they can provide roads, landscaping, lighting and trash pickup. Is there something magical about some services and not others?
