Conflicts are inevitable when a city wide government is also beholden to a larger state. In the United States, it is even worse. Local, state, and federal governments claim control of the same land–not to mention individual land owners.

Sometimes the smaller governments want to be left alone and fight for control over their own affairs. But other times they think the larger government should pay for things which only benefit the small locality. They seem to argue, well if we are subjects of their government we might as well get some benefit out of it.

The other day I wrote about how city governments are primed to compete for residents.

China ruins the opportunity for cities under its control to compete for foreign residents. The country implements draconian internet laws across the board, which individual cities or districts cannot nix. The larger government ruins the opportunity for smaller governments to improve.

But what about when the opposite happens?

Cities Control the State

New York State runs the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) which includes the subways in New York City. New York City leases the subways from the MTA and must fund improvements and repairs.

With two sentences of information, anyone can see that there would be no problems if the City and State were not involved in this "partnership." But since they are, NYC thinks the State should pay for repairs to its crumbling subway infrastructure. The State, you guessed it, thinks the city should pay for it.

Lately, subways have been leaving passengers stranded, getting stuck, breaking down, and arriving late. This is due to a combination of old equipment that breaks, and the highest number of people ever trying to use the subway system.

Each side bolsters their argument by pointing to different pieces of legislation implemented before either Mayor Di Blasio or Governor Cuomo were born.