
officials at City Hall. Over the centuries, patricians have given way to immigrant bosses,
reformers, politicians and outsiders. In the early twenty-first century, a mayor, city
council or city manager must manage conflicting factions and guide a city, while shaping
regional, national and international images. Hence, mayors have included charismatic and
controversial figures on the frontline of politics—LaGuardia and Giuliani in
New Yor
City, NY, Alioto and Feinstein in
San Francisco, CA,
the
Daleys
in
Chicago, IL,
etc.
Only two American mayors, however (Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge), have
become president.
City governments vary widely in their constitution and powers, set by states (or the
federal government for
Washington, DC
). Urban administration generally must appoint
officers, set agendas and budgets (on the basis of local revenues and, in the postwar era,
increasing federal inter-vention) and manage services including parks, security education
and ceremonial visits. Strong mayors control—or delegate to department heads and
managers—most functions of government; others, however, share functions with their
elected city councils, which may represent
neighborhoods
or interest groups. Depending
on the city charter (itself often dependent on the state),
police
chiefs, Boards o
Education, and somewhat autonomous institutions dealing with water, housing,
transportation and health may further divide responsibility. Moreover, the complexities o
urban laws and records mean that even small cities have bureaucracies that endure long
after any mayor leaves office. Finally, city government must balance interests of state and
federal government, competing regional interests and divided citizens. This becomes
critical as development and welfare programs have become areas of shared responsibility
or in emergent policy questions—environment or
immigration
—in which the city cannot
control policies, although it must deal with consequences. The need for coordination also
underscores the impact of
suburbs
on city administrations: cities are swamped by, yet cut
off from, metropolitan growth. The era of annexation ended well before the Second
World War, although few real consolidated planning and governance structures have
emerged in expanding metropolitan areas. Suburbanites, in turn, may be more likely to
identify a charismatic urban leader than the bureaucrats generally charged with the
planning and politics of sprawl. Hence, mayors negotiate constantly—with other
governments, unions, businesses and citizens.
Traditional mayors tend to be found in large American cities, older cities and the
Northeast
. Such mayors are intensely political, often within a highly partisan framework
(although socialists dominated
Milwaukee
and reform candidates have beaten the system
elsewhere). For most of the twentieth century mayors were identified with political
machines that organized, coerced and bought votes—with money or patronage—in order
to promote party interests; Chicago’s Richard Daley was such a kingpin. Local
organization, from ward politics and political clubs through urban patronage, can play a
strong role in state and national elections as well. The urban dead, according to folklore,
have voted many times in Chicago and
Philadelphia, PA
. Civil-service reforms and
other watchdogs have been used to control such party bosses.
Yet the immediacy and intensity of city government has made it an area o
Entries A-Z 711