Check this new article by Andrew Highsmith in the Journal of Urban History (while you’re at it, you can check out my article on the San Fernando Valley secession movement) Highsmith complicates the narrative of capital flight established in many classic histories of Michigan’s auto cities by arguing that General Motors sought not so much to flee the Flint area as to leverage surrounding suburban governments to pursue metropolitan consolidation. These events also complicate the public choice theories of competitive localism that follow from Paul Peterson’s City Limits, which would predict that a major employer would prefer fragmented government to increase its leverage over whatever municipality housed its facilities. I’m thinking about how to apply some of this insight to the case of Atlanta in the 1970s. Although Atlanta wasn’t a one-company town like Flint, it did have a centrally organized business elite that was deeply enmeshed in metropolitics debates on two planes–should businesses invest in booming outlying areas or defend downtown? and should they seek consolidation of regional governments or enhance suburban autonomy?–that neither the mechanistic logic of public choice nor the historical trope of disinvestment adequately recognize.