Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 97, no. 2501: Articles]: February 19, 1916

Text version:

REAL. ESTATE Al^^D / ^) BUILDERS NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 19, 1916 WHAT KIND OF HOME RULE DOES THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRE AND WHY? By HENRY BRUERE, City Chamberlain HOME rule has for many years been a political battle cry in New York. The struggle for home rule began when the State legislature practically took the city government over bodily, even going so far as to make city appropriations from the capitol at Albany. Reformers have demanded home rule, politicians have promised home rule, but after decades of discussion home rule is still an aspiration and not an immediate probability in New York City. Mayor Mitchel's article last week dis¬ cussed some of the legal aspects of home rule. These may seem at first glance to be difficult and complicated. Experi¬ ence has shown that some complexity is necessary in the framing of home rule provisions to avoid judicial overturning of home rule powers. But this is a mat¬ ter for skilled lawyers to attend to. What laymen need to concern theirl- selves with are the aims and results of home rule and not the legal phraseology necessary to bring it about. These aims and results are easy to comprehend. What Home Rule Means. Home rule for New York City is still - a remote possibility chiefly because the demand for it among citizens of New York is vague and undefined. Home rule has been most often discussed as a negative proposal. It has expressed largely rhetorical revolt against up-state control of New York City affairs through the legislature. But .genuine home rule is rather a positive responsi¬ bility than a negative state of freedom from legislative control. Clearly it does not mean merely the absence of legis¬ lative interference. It means, rather, the assumption by the people of the lo¬ cality of the difficult task of organizing, commissioning and controlling their lo¬ cal government. If out of five million people in New York City 5,000 were actively concerned with having a city government do work of the most completely effective char¬ acter, it would not take New York long to obtain home rule. The chief obstacle to home rule in New York is that the number of persons who are intimately concerned about the welfare and effec¬ tiveness of city government is so limited that radical reforms such as the substi¬ tution of local for le.gislative re,gulation of city affairs are slow in coming. In or¬ der to inspire a more insistent and coer¬ cive demand for home rule it is neces¬ sary, iu my judgment, for the people of the city to think in terms of the definite responsibilities of home rule instead of in the vague generalities of the doctrines and theories of home rule. City a Part of State. The city is a subdivision of the state. There is no justification for complete municipal self-government by a city un¬ less the city is prepared to discharge its business with greater effectiveness and regard for public welfare under its own complete management than under a form of govei-nment and rules of opera¬ tion prescribed by the state. This can only happen when public interest in gov¬ ernment and public desire for govern¬ ment results are so vigorous and insis¬ tent as to exercise the same influence for good in the management of local af¬ fairs that is presumed to be exercised by the responsibility and disinterested¬ ness of the legislature. HON. HE.NKV BRUERE. I therefore place as a first step in the direction of home rule the development of a genuinely passionate concern for efficient and constructive government on the part of a large number of citizens. This, I think, is coming about, but it is coming slowly in New York, much more slowly than in the cities of the West, where home rule has been achieved. Home Rule in Ohio. The cities of Ohio have availed them¬ selves of their power to obtain home rule when they felt a strong desire to direct and control government in the public interest. Home rule is natural in the city of Cleveland, because Cleve¬ land, under Mayor Johnson's brilliant leadership, learned to think of city gov¬ ernment as a publicly owned instrument for dealing with questions of the great¬ est public moment such as street railway transportation. In Dayton, Ohio, home rule followed inevitably upon the recog¬ nition by the citizens of Dayton, com¬ pelled by the great flood of 1911, that the reliabilitation of the devastated city would only be possible by vigorous and unprejudiced action of city government. New York came nearest home rule when it felt the need_ for working through city government in dealing with its great transportation problem. New York will wish home rule now with greater earnestness as it feels that it can achieve a greater economy and straightforwardness of management through the exercise of home rule powers. ■WHAT HOME RULE DOES. It imposes restraint upon the legislatiire of the State with re¬ spect to the passage of measures affecting cities. It grants by constitutional right as opposed to legislative authority, certain definite powers to munici¬ palities which the legislature may not abrogate. It authorizes the city to frame its own charter. I venture to say that even the aver¬ age intelligent man has not set up in his mind a clear picture of what home rule means. Let us first dispose of some possible bogies. Some Bogies. Property owners now look to the State for limitations on the local power to levy taxes. Home rule would not mean release from State ta.xing limita¬ tion. Sometimes local latitude in se¬ lecting methods of ta.xation is considered desirable, but generally it is agreed that the local government should not be given power to increase taxation beyond a definite point fixed by State constitu¬ tion or State legislature. Home rule would not mean vesting in elective officials power fundamentally to reconstruct the government or to change the terms or conditions under which public officials were elected. Such powers would be vested only in the elec¬ tors of the city who through referendum would be obliged to approve a new char¬ ter or radical amendments thereto. Home rule would not vest in local authoriities complete control over civil service. It is generally agreed that civil service regulations should be subservient to state control because of the irnpor- tance of preserving public service from political debauchery. Home rule would not mean the libera¬ tion of the city to do as it chose regard¬ ing education. Education is everywhere regarded as a State function to be car¬ ried on under State supervision and direction. Home rule would not mean the free¬ dom of the city to regard or disregard State laws which the local police are called upon to enforce. The city must always continue to serve as an agent of the State in exercising police powers if tlie State chooses, and home rule would not negative this responsibility. Could Frame City Charter. Briefl3- these added elements of self- government would be granted by the liberation of the city from State control. Home rule would give to the electorate of the city of New York power to frame the city charter and to commit to elec¬ tive officials certain authority to amend specific provisions of the charter, or to govern the internal organization of city departments. Home rule would give to the people of the city power on referendum to en¬ gage in any great public service activity such as ownership and operation of a utility—a bus line, lighting plants, sub¬ ways or ferries. Generally, such power is restricted to specifically named utili¬ ties, and in the opinion of those who have studied the question it should always be controlled by the requirement of submission for public approval. City Free from Some Burdens. Home rule would clearly impress upon tlie State the unwisdom of imposing upon the city mandatory charges in re¬ spect of local functions. It would auto¬ matically release the citv from the bur¬ densome and interfering State regula¬ tions in re.gard to local affairs. Home rule would increase responsi¬ bility on the part of the local electorate and officials for the character of govern¬ ment, because it would remove the op- jiortunity for placing blame upon the legislature for unsatisfactory conditions,