The Growth Machine in Anaheim, California gets socked with a corruption probe

Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place is the book which expands the original argument first laid out by Professor Harvey Molotch in the journal article "The City as a Growth Machine."

Growth Machine theory is from urban sociology and posits that local political and economic elites, despite intra-elite competition, are overall unified in terms of the commitment to an economic growth agenda centered on real estate development and land use intensification.

Political science has a similar theory, called Urban Regime.  I think GM is better on the overall explanation of why local elites do what they do, while UR is better at explaining at how it operates.  

Where GM theory is particularly insightful on various elements of the land use intensification agenda, from Downtown revitalization to sports stadiums and arenas, conference centers, and in particular, the role of local media--fully dependent of the success of the local region for its own success, being dependent on advertising revenues generated primarily from sales to local businesses--in cementing this agenda.

As I said, UR theory is best for explaining how the Growth Coalition works.  In the paper, "Now What? The continuing evolution of Urban Regime analysis," political science Professor Clarence Stone writes:

An urban regime can be preliminarily defined as the informal arrangements through which a locality is governed (Stone 1989). Because governance is about sustained efforts, it is important to think in agenda terms rather than about stand-alone issues. By agenda I mean the set of challenges which policy makers accord priority. A concern with agendas takes us away from focusing on short-term controversies and instead directs attention to continuing efforts and the level of weight they carry in the political life of a community. Rather than treating issues as if they are disconnected, a governance perspective calls for considering how any given issue fits into a flow of decisions and actions. This approach enlarges the scope of what is being analyzed, looking at the forest not a particular tree here or there. [emphasis added, in this paragraph and below] ...

By looking closely at the policy role of business leaders and how their position in the civic structure of a community enabled that role, he identified connections between Atlanta's governing coalition and the resources it brought to bear, and on to the scheme of cooperation that made this informal system work. In his own way, Hunter had identified the key elements in an urban regime – governing coalition, agenda, resources, and mode of cooperation. These elements could be brought into the next debate about analyzing local politics, a debate about structural determinism.

I've written about this in a bunch of blog entries about other communities, as well as about DC:

-- ""Columbus Way" merely another example of "Growth Machine/Urban Regime" theory," 2019
-- "Minneapolis growth machine," 2015
-- "If you don't know urban political theory, it's likely that you don't understand local land use: St. Louis: DC; etc.," 2012
-- "Smaller town revitalization planning: No, Thomas Friedman is not a sage," 2018
-- "The Growth Machine needs to be subtle when it comes to elections | Voters need to see some benefits," 2020

Graphic from "Public-Private Partnership Model Used in the Taipei Central Station Project Research," Mou Chung Tseng, National Taipei University.

Usually, it's pretty much out in the open, in that groups like the chamber of commerce and other organizations--in DC the Federal City Council ("THE DISTRICT'S POWER BEHIND THE SCENES: Washington Post-connected business group wields influence over city's legislative agenda," and "The DC Lobby," The Common Denominator)--are the organized growth coalition, which includes leaders of major locally-based corporations, real estate developers, bankers, university presidents, media leaders, etc.  

In NYC you have REBNY, the Real Estate Board of New York and the Partnership for New York City as the leads, with plenty of other groups in a secondary position.  Plus business improvement districts (which often have ex-government officials as leaders), etc.

Elected officials are more "fellow travelers," not so much stated "card carrying" members of the group.  But aligned and integrally involved ("Meet the Lobbyists, Developers, and Insiders On Bowser’s ReOpen DC Committees," Washington City Paper).

Anaheim has its "growth coalition" too, centered around Disneyland first and foremost as well as professional sports operations, especially the Anaheim Angels baseball team and stadium.

But unlike in other places, apparently the group operates more "secretively" and has involved the sharing of confidential city information with business interests, putting it more into the zone of corruption rather than mutual cooperation ("Secret retreats and a powerful ‘cabal’: Corruption probe reveals who really runs Anaheim," Los Angeles Times).

Hence the probe.

Note that DC has corruption issues too.  See:

-- "Managing the brand promise of cities in the face of corruption," 2019
-- "Wow: Revisiting DC's Corruption Caucus," 2019