Let’s dive deeper into historical examples that illustrate why allowing a Chamber of Commerce—or any business-dominated entity—to run a city is a risky proposition. These cases highlight the pitfalls of prioritizing economic interests over democratic governance and public welfare, offering tangible lessons for why a Chamber should not hold the reins of municipal power. Below, I’ll explore three key examples: the company towns of the Industrial Age, the influence of business elites in Gilded Age cities, and the modern case of business-heavy urban development gone awry. Each underscores the dangers of skewed priorities, lack of accountability, and neglect of broader community needs.
1. Company Towns: Pullman, Illinois (1880s–1890s)
One of the most striking historical examples of business rule is the company town, where a single corporation controlled nearly every aspect of life. Pullman, Illinois, founded by railroad magnate George Pullman in the 1880s, is a classic case. Pullman built the town south of Chicago to house workers for his Pullman Palace Car Company, which manufactured luxury train cars. He didn’t just provide jobs—he owned the homes, stores, churches, and utilities, effectively running the town as a private fiefdom.
At first glance, Pullman seemed utopian: neat streets, modern amenities, and a picturesque design. But beneath the surface, it was a cautionary tale of business governance. Rent was deducted directly from workers’ wages, often leaving them with little disposable income. Prices at company stores were inflated, and residents had no choice but to shop there. Pullman banned unions, controlled the press, and even dictated social behavior, like prohibiting alcohol. When the Panic of 1893 hit and wages were slashed, Pullman refused to lower rents, sparking the infamous Pullman Strike of 1894. Federal troops crushed the uprising, but the fallout exposed the town’s flaws: residents had no say in their governance, no recourse against exploitation, and no buffer against the company’s profit-driven decisions.
A Chamber of Commerce isn’t a single company, but its focus on business interests mirrors Pullman’s model. If a Chamber ran a city, it might similarly prioritize its members’ profits—say, keeping commercial rents high or resisting wage increases—over residents’ well-being. Without democratic checks, dissent could be ignored, much like Pullman’s workers were silenced until they revolted. The lesson? Business rule concentrates power in unaccountable hands, leaving ordinary people vulnerable.
2. Gilded Age Cities: Tammany Hall and Business Collusion (Late 19th Century)
The Gilded Age offers another lens: cities where business elites didn’t directly govern but wielded outsized influence through political machines. In New York City, Tammany Hall, the Democratic political machine, ran the show from the mid-19th century into the early 20th. While Tammany was corrupt in its own right—doling out patronage and rigging elections—it often partnered with business tycoons to shape the city. Wealthy industrialists and merchants, akin to a proto-Chamber of Commerce, bankrolled Tammany in exchange for favorable policies: tax breaks, lax regulation, and lucrative contracts.
Take the construction of New York’s infrastructure. Business leaders pushed for projects like railroads and ports, which boosted commerce but often trampled public needs. The infamous Tweed Courthouse, built under Tammany’s watch in the 1860s and 1870s, cost taxpayers $13 million (hundreds of millions today), with much of it siphoned to contractors and insiders. Meanwhile, tenements festered, sanitation lagged, and workers endured brutal conditions—issues that didn’t profit the elite, so they were ignored. When business interests dominated, the city became a machine for wealth extraction, not a home for all.
A Chamber running a city could replicate this dynamic. Its members might lobby for flashy downtown developments or tax incentives, while neglecting affordable housing or public health—echoing how Gilded Age elites favored profit over equity. Tammany at least faced elections (however rigged); a Chamber wouldn’t even have that accountability, potentially deepening the disconnect between rulers and ruled.
3. Modern Example: Detroit’s Business-Led Revival Efforts (2010s)
Fast-forward to the 21st century: Detroit’s post-bankruptcy recovery offers a nuanced case of business-heavy governance. After filing for bankruptcy in 2013, Detroit saw an influx of private investment from business leaders like Dan Gilbert, founder of Quicken Loans. Gilbert’s Rock Ventures bought up swaths of downtown property, spearheading a revitalization that brought sleek offices, upscale apartments, and trendy shops. Local business groups, including the Detroit Regional Chamber, cheered the effort, touting it as a model for economic rebirth.
But the results were lopsided. Downtown gleamed with new wealth, yet many neighborhoods—home to long-time, mostly Black residents—saw little improvement. Property taxes soared as values rose, displacing lower-income families. Public services like schools and transit remained underfunded, as business leaders focused on projects with clear ROI, like stadiums or corporate hubs. Critics, including urban scholars like Thomas Sugrue, argued that this “trickle-down urbanism” prioritized the interests of investors and newcomers over the broader population. By 2018, studies showed Detroit’s poverty rate still hovered around 33%, even as downtown thrived.
If the Detroit Regional Chamber had outright run the city, this imbalance might have been worse. Its membership—dominated by CEOs and developers—would likely double down on business-friendly policies, sidelining the needs of the 67% of residents not seeing the revival’s benefits. The lesson here is that business-driven leadership excels at economic growth but often fails at equitable distribution, leaving cities divided rather than united.
Connecting the Dots
These examples—Pullman’s autocratic control, Tammany’s business collusion, and Detroit’s uneven recovery—reveal recurring themes. When business interests govern, whether directly or through proxies, they tend to:
- Prioritize profit over people: Pullman maximized revenue at workers’ expense; Gilded Age elites built fortunes while slums grew; Detroit’s investors polished downtown but left neighborhoods behind.
- Lack accountability: Pullman answered only to himself, Tammany to its donors, and Detroit’s business leaders to their bottom lines—not the public.
- Neglect non-economic needs: Social welfare, culture, and equity took a backseat in each case, as business logic dominated.
A Chamber of Commerce running a city would likely follow suit. Its DNA—advocating for its members—doesn’t align with the diverse, democratic mandate of municipal governance. Historical attempts at business rule show efficiency in boosting commerce but failure in fostering inclusive, resilient communities. Pullman collapsed under its own rigidity; Tammany fell to reform movements; Detroit’s revival remains incomplete. Cities need balance—economic vitality, yes, but also fairness, transparency, and care for all residents. A Chamber, by its nature, can’t deliver that.
