Key to understanding the transit disaster in Atlanta is grasping the degree to which racial tensions have shaped the structure and reach of municipal government in the area.
We don’t have that in Atlanta—we have a lot of small government, run by the counties. As a result of that, we’re in a lot of trouble.
And why does Atlanta lack control of its major roads and other transit arteries (to say nothing of the limited scope of the transit system in the area)?
The demographics of the area give us a bit of a clue. Cobb County, a suburban area that sits adjacent to the city and shares some its infrastructure, is 66 percent white. Atlanta proper, by contrast, is 54 percent black.
Coverage of transit debates in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution revealed how deeply race mattered. In suburban Cobb County, the chairman of a local anti-tax organization declared that ‘MARTA-style mass transit would lead to an increase in crime and the construction of low-income housing in Cobb County’ (Atlanta Constitution, 1998).
It’s easy to see how the fragmented, “small” government of the area is—at least in part—a product of these racial fears. Rules and structures that hamper Atlanta’s ability to do anything—like close roads and schools—are useful ways of maintaining existing racial barriers.
None of this is to say that there aren’t legitimate concerns here, or that race is the driving force behind the particular institutional configuration of this area. But it is hard to disentangle this variety of small government conservatism from the white racial parochialism it, to some degree, works to protect.
In any case, what we have in the Atlanta transit disaster is a case study in how racial fear and resentment can mix with politics to produce a status quo that handicaps lawmakers, and leaves them unable to deal with predictable, but serious, events. And given the extent to which racial tension is a fact of life in many urban areas, it’s a lesson worth listening to.