[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.334;Henry M.Levin,  The Public-Private Nexus in Education, American Behavioral Scien-tist 43 (1996), pp.135 36; and Gary Burtless,  The Economist s Lament: PublicAssistance in America, Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 (1990), pp.57 78.7.For a helpful discussion of the kind of approach being taken here, see RogersSmith,  Political Jurisprudence, the  New Institutionalism, and the Future of PublicLaw, American Political Science Review 82 (1988), pp.91, 102, 104 06:  If one isattempting an interpretive narrative that shows [certain] structures of thought andargument to be visible in [the] text of public discourse, one can do so only by focus-ing  on a few major cases that seem representative instead of documenting how thosestructures are visible in all or most of the relevant cases.Smith also points out something else.The project of interpreting the structure ofpolicy discourse is directed at uncovering not the interests or the strategic motivationsthat might drive participants to mount various arguments a different endeavor butrather the patterns in those arguments themselves.A  wealth of.internal psycho-logical factors and personal interests.influences all political conduct, Smith writes.But even so,  the behavior of political actors.is influenced in part by the nature.of the ideas they possess, and the basic ideas of a given period.often have a dis-cernible structure, which may be articulated in revealing fashion by political writersof the day. See Liberalism and American Constitutional Law (Harvard University Press,1985), pp.6 7; see also Martin Shapiro,  Of Interests and Values: The New Politics andthe New Political Science, in The New Politics of Public Policy, edited by Marc K.Landyand Martin A.Levin (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), p.5; and Jeffrey Hening,Rethinking School Choice: Limits of the Market Metaphor (Princeton University Press,1974), pp.74, 77.8.David Kirp, Almost Home: America s Love-Hate Relationship with Community(Princeton University Press, 2000), p.21.CHAPTER ONE1.Interview, Fred Gaines, October 17, 1997.2.Interview, Irv Foreman, February 27, 1997.3.Interview, Amanda Susskind, October 10, 1997.4.See, for example, Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Riseof Residential Private Government (Yale University Press, 1994); and Edward J.Blakelyand Mary Gail Snyder, Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States(Brookings, 1997).5.Community Associations Institute,  Industry Data (www.caionline.org/info/research/Pages/default.aspx); Haya El Nasser,  Gated Communities More Popular,and Not Just for Rich, USA Today, December 16, 2002, p.1A; see also John Bruhn, Communities of Exclusion and Excluded Communities: Barriers to Neighboring, inThe Sociology of Community Connections (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Pub-lishers 2004), pp.133 57.0333-4-14 notes:Layout 1 10/29/09 3:45 PM Page 205NOTES TO PAGES 13 23 2056.Robert C.Ellickson,  Cities and Homeowners Associations, University of Penn-sylvania Law Review 130 (1982), p.1578.7.California Assembly Select Committee on Common Interest Subdivisions, InterimHearing on Common Interest Developments and the Future, October 11, 1990, Sacra-mento, pp.50 51; 56.8.California Assembly Select Committee on Common Interest Subdivisions, FinalReport, December 23, 1990, Sacramento, p.44.9.Interview, Robyn Stewart, August 5, 1996.10.Flat Top Lake Association v.United States, 868 F.2d 108 (4th Cir.1989).11.Interview, Benjamin Lambert, March 17, 1997.12.Interview, Benjamin Lambert, August 8, 1996.13.Interview, Doug Kleine, February 10, 1997, and November 7, 1997.14.See, as well, Nancy L.Rosenblum, Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses ofPluralism in America (Princeton University Press, 1998), p.152.15.Interview, David Ramsey, February 20, 1997, and October 16, 1997.16.Interview, Steve Silverman, February 10, 1997.17.See, for example, Theda Skocpol, Diminished Democracy: From Membership toManagement in American Civic Life (University of Oklahoma Press, 2003), pp.257 58.18.Interview, Jeff Olson, February 11, 1997.19.For a discussion of these motives by one of the intellectual pioneers of such ini-tiatives, see Oscar Newman, Community of Interest (Garden City, N.Y.: AnchorPress/Doubleday, 1980), pp.17, 128, 133.20.Interview, Tom Benton, October 4, 1997.21.Interview, Silvia Unzueta, April 15,1997; see also Fred Siegel, The Future OnceHappened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America s Big Cities (New York:Free Press, 1997), p.171.22.Interview, Monique Taylor, February 24, 1997, and October 3 4, 1997.23.Interview, Mike van Dyk, October 10, 11, 1997.24.See, for example, Josh Zimmer,  No Gates on Public Streets, St.PetersburgTimes, August 28, 2002, p.1B.25.Interview, Randall Atlas, August 23, 1997.26.Interview, Carol Pelly, August 27, 1997.27.Interview, Mickey Munir, September 4, 1997.28.Interviews with Addison city councillor Sue Halpern, September 9, 1997; Planoassistant city manager Frank Turner, July 29, 1997; Richardson deputy city managerJerry Hiebert, August 27, 1997; Southlake city planner Chris Carpenter, May 12, 1997.29.Interview, Carmen Moran, September 13, 1997.30.Richard Stengel,  Bowling Together, Time Magazine, July 22, 1996, p.3.31.Andrew Heiskell,  Letters, Time Magazine, August 12, 1996, p.6.32.For a balanced and insightful analysis of BIDs from a legal perspective, seeRichard Briffault,  A Government for Our Time? Business Improvement Districts andUrban Governance, Columbia Law Review 99 (1999), pp.365 477.Briffault describesBIDs as entities less public than the state, because they cannot  enforce a vision of0333-4-14 notes:Layout 1 10/29/09 3:45 PM Page 206206 NOTES TO PAGES 23 24public order, yet less private than the businesses within their perimeters, because theydo not own any property (pp.475 76).33.Interview, Terry Miller, October 10, 1997.34.Interview, Paul Levy, February 24, 1997.35.Interview, Gretchen Dykstra, August 12, 1996.36.Interview, Andrew Eristoff, November 13, 1996.37.Interview, Dave Fogarty, September 10, 1996.38.Jack R.Greene, Thomas M.Seamon, and Paul R.Levy,  Merging Public and Pri-vate Security for Collective Benefit: Philadelphia s Center City District, AmericanJournal of Police 14 (1995), pp 9, 15.There is a subtlety involved in determining whatis objectionable about this kind of practice.Viewed one way, it would be unfair toallege that, by offering to pay for a new station if the city staffs it, the BID is bribing thecity, skewing municipal officeholders judgment, or otherwise distorting their priori-ties.True, the city might not deem the provision of extra police in the BID to be its verynext priority, as long as the price to it includes the cost of both station and personnel.But extra policing in the BID might very well jump to the city s number-one spot whenthe price to it is just that of personnel.This is nothing more than the economist sfamous substitution effect, in which the lowering of the price of a good causes con-sumers to shift their consumption.But the lowering of a price is also supposed to create an income effect, which cansometimes counter the substitution effect.If the price of a potato falls by half from$1 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]