{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027503526093088856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00846262341325811, 'mean_word_length': 5.822115384615385, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quandaries of Pragmatic Reform: A Reassessment of the Jacksonville Experience

LOCAL GOVERNMENT is one of the most scrutinized and consistently reformed institutions in America, due in part to the notoriety of political party “machines.” Citizen perceptions of effective, efficient, accountable, and equitable governance have prompted change in the structure of local government, its officials and policies. Local government delivers most of the public services on which citizens have come to rely. Certainly, the local polity is the most accessible and is expected to approximate the ideals of a responsive democratic government. Those who champion urban reform contend that the proliferation of governmental units within the metropolis diffuses authority. They assert that, under a consolidated government, there would be greater coordination and accountability, as well as resolution of intercommunity inequities (Rusk 1995). Often, however, these proponents are too uncritical of empirical analysis and shirk from probing conventional wisdom. In the case of Jacksonville–Duval County, which became unified in 1968, the proponents of metropolitan reform were the chamber of commerce, the media, banks, city officials, academics, manufacturers, utilities, central-city homeowners, and the League of Women Voters (ACIR 1962). The opponents Quandaries of Pragmatic Reform: A Reassessment of the Jacksonville Experience