Municipal government in the South is no longer the concern of a few as it was not so many years ago.' In an area which has been, and to a considerable extent still is, strongly rural and agrarian in thought and practice, the twin facts of the increase in the number of cities and the concentration of urban population in emerging metropolitan districts have hastened the changes in the pattern of local government. Increasingly the governmental needs of many sections of the South require the attention of city rather than rural government. If an observer of the municipal scene had arranged to space his travels in the early or middle thirties and today, he would be confronted on his second visit with both familiar and changed conditions. He would find, for example, that the answer to the question where the city was going to get the money was as hard and, to municipal councils and administrators, as cruel a question as it had been in the past. Obstacles to municipal fiscal freedom would still be found in state constitutions and statutes. Economy and efficiency would still be staples of conversation, especially among taxpayers before city councils when additional or increased taxes were being considered, and our observer would notice the familiar sight, as he had earlier, of some of the most vociferous objectors appearing the next day at the city hall and demanding increased municipal expenditures for one of their pet projects. (For one verbal symbol, however, our observer would listen in vain; that ominous word retrenchment had disappeared, even if only temporarily, from the municipal lexicon.) If municipal abstinence to achieve survival was the order of the day in the early thirties, however, our observer would find that current municipal revenues and expenditures were
Read full abstract