Local government is not the heart of a community—it’s the tool that protects the space for community to thrive.
At the recent ITR Foundation Local Government Symposium, Mark Moses, a longtime municipal finance expert and author of The Municipal Financial Crisis, delivered a compelling challenge to local officials: Before trying to fix how government operates, we must first ask what government is for.
With decades of experience as a city finance director and consultant to California municipalities, Moses brought practical insight and philosophical clarity to a conversation that’s too often bogged down in budget mechanics. He was joined by Patrick Tuohey, co-founder and policy director of the Better Cities Project, who echoed Moses’s message that too many cities have lost sight of their true purpose—and that mission confusion is at the heart of their financial challenges.
Moses opened his presentation with a simple but powerful premise: municipalities across the country are trapped in a cycle of budget scarcity, and the usual “fixes”—better budgeting, new software, transparency initiatives—are not working. Why? Because local governments are trying to do too much. Their missions are vague, unbounded, and constantly expanding.
Too many cities adopt feel-good mission statements like “maximizing quality of life” or “delivering the highest level of service.” These open-ended goals lead to mission creep—where cities take on more responsibilities, add more programs, and commit to more spending. As Moses explained, a city’s goals define its activities, and those activities drive its costs. Without a clearly defined mission, financial instability is inevitable.
He challenged attendees to reconsider the very definition of a city. At its core, a city is a legislative authority with enforcement power over a defined geographic area. Its essential role is to protect rights, define rules, and adjudicate disputes—not to act as a charitable organization or economic developer. When cities engage in activities better left to the private sector or voluntary associations—like offering tax incentives to lure developers—they blur the lines between government and market, often crowding out private investment and innovation.
Moses also highlighted how the status quo mindset traps local leaders. Many officials believe that any activity with public support is automatically justified. They assume tax revenue is a given, rather than the product of residents’ hard work. And they often act as if the city exists for its own sake, rather than as a tool to serve the people who live and work there.
Tuohey reinforced this perspective, warning against the growing trend of cities viewing themselves as central planners rather than facilitators of freedom. He argued that many economic development departments rely on what he called “fanciful thinking”—believing that subsidized projects will always create value or that governments can outmaneuver market forces.
The solution, Moses argued, is not simply to manage better, but to govern differently. Local officials must shift the conversation from means to ends—not just how to budget better, but what should even be in the budget. Cities must adopt clear, limited missions focused on core services: public safety, infrastructure, and legal order. Everything else should be scrutinized under the lens of necessity, affordability, and whether it truly requires government involvement.
He encouraged local officials to ask hard questions before approving new spending: Is this really the role of government? Can we afford it? Would it happen without public dollars? And what are we giving up to fund it?
Ultimately, Moses and Tuohey offered a powerful reminder: Local government is not the engine of prosperity or the heart of a community. It is a means to an end—a tool for protecting the liberty and property of residents so they can build strong communities themselves. As cities across the country face rising costs, growing responsibilities, and skeptical taxpayers, the message delivered by Moses and Tuohey couldn’t be more timely. Elected officials have an opportunity—and an obligation—to redefine the role of local government. And it starts by asking the question too few are willing to confront: What is a city for?
Print a PDF