Regional governance, by contrast to municipal or state control, is the best level of government to tackle certain public functions-or at least, so it seems to most urban planners. Yet in many parts of the United States, it is all but impossible to build the political will to shift from local to regional governance. This decision-forcing case (which includes a video supplement, HKS Case 2093.0) places students in Detroit during the city's financial crisis and bankruptcy, events that set the stage for the controversial 2013-2014 negotiation to create a regional water system in greater Detroit. Set after an initial round of negotiations has collapsed, and a second effort is about to begin, the case challenges students to step into the shoes of the negotiating team, including the City of Detroit, three suburban counties, and the state of Michigan. It describes how Detroit's 2014 financial crisis and bankruptcy created an opportunity for regional governance, and also created conditions that made regionalization difficult. The case explores the history of distrust in city-suburban relationships, tensions over Detroit's management of the water department, the role of an outside emergency manager in setting negotiations in motion, and the reasons the first round of negotiations collapsed acrimoniously. A video supplement provides critical background on the reasons for Detroit's evolution as a majority-black city and the deterioration of its relationships with its majority-white suburbs, including racial discrimination, white flight, economic disinvestment and the controversial mayoralty of Coleman Young in the 1970s and 1980s. Case number 2114.0

In the first two decades of the 21st century, Copenhagen has vaulted to international attention for its enthusiastic bicycle culture and infrastructure. While it's tempting to dismiss this accomplishment as inherently easy because it took place in a city and country known for socially liberal politics, this case-by summarizing the history of cycling politics and policy in Copenhagen since the 1970s-shows that the evolution of Copenhagen as a bike city was neither quick nor easy, and that the city wrestled (and continues to wrestle) with many of the same conflicts that have hampered efforts to promote biking in other cities around the world. In so doing, the case invites a more nuanced analysis and discussion of the actual keys to Copenhagen's success. Case number 2113.0

In February 2010, Germany's national railway broke ground on a project that had been under negotiation for more than 20 years-the Stuttgart segment of the European Magistrale, a 930-mile cross-Europe high-speed rail line that would one day extend from Paris through Munich and Vienna to Budapest and Bratislava. At long last, the German national railway, the state of Baden-Württemberg, and the city of Stuttgart had come to agreement on the routing and station design of the megaproject. Yet within the year, the project would spark the largest citizen demonstrations Germany had seen since the reunification of the country. The Stuttgart 21 opponents were diverse, and so were their concerns, but nearly all were united by one overriding contention: that political elites had conceived the plan without public input and had later refused to take citizen objections seriously. The case provides basic background and context for this controversy, then describes four kinds of public participation that took place in the course of developing the project: (1) a city-sponsored open-participation process in 1997 allowing citizens to weigh in on the neighborhood re-development portions of the project; (2) a petition drive by opponents to hold a city referendum on the project, later followed by mass demonstrations; (3) a state-sponsored mediation process between supporters and opponents of the project; and (4) a state election followed by a state referendum on the project.