I like how you phrased that and take it to the system level to think about it. It reminds me of Indianapolis, Cleveland, and their metropolitan areas. In 1969

I like how you phrased that and take it to the system level to think about it. It reminds me of Indianapolis, Cleveland, and their metropolitan areas. In 1969 Indianapolis created a "Unigov" merging with its surrounding county, and all of the suburbs within it.[0] The Unigov concept has been studied a lot. General view is it was a net positive, with one of those benefits being a shared vision, shared tax base, etc. Contrast that with the city of Cleveland and its metropolitan area. The city and its suburbs are distinct places. Suburbs on the east side and west side compete with downtown to give economic incentives to draw businesses away from each other. For example, American Greetings (the card maker) moved its long-time HQ from Brooklyn, Ohio (a Cleveland suburb) to Westlake, Ohio (another Cleveland suburb). Westlake lured American Greetings with incentives that Brooklyn could not match. The net benefit to the region is likely nil, but the benefit to Westlake, and the loss to the other suburb is demonstrable. [0] https://www.cgr.org/consensuscny/docs/CaseStudies_ec-unigov514.pdf https://www.cgr.org/consensuscny/docs/CaseStudies_ec-unigov5...