Little Rock, North Little Rock, Sherwood, Jacksonville, Consolidation?? (Maumelle, Lowell: budget, jobs)

[Ice_Queen88]

Is this rumor true. I think if it is it will be a very good thing for Little Rock, as it would increase the city size to over 300,000 people making it onto the 50 largest cities in the nation list and would increase jobs and other good stuff. Lets face facts, North Litte Rock, Sherwood and Jacksonville just follows Little Rock, they have no real defined downtown (city center)and they basically just follows Little Rock. Also, North Little Rock has lost some population since 2000 while Little Rock has gained.

[Stormcrow73]

No, there's absolutely no truth to it. It's something some of us on boards have debated as to whether it would be good or not but there is no movement I am aware of to get any sort of effort in regards to this moving forward.

Most of us think it's a great idea as it would reduce some levels of administration and give the region more perceived leverage to bring in jobs but no one seems to think that cities like Jax, NLR, Maumelle feel they could gain much out of such a deal. It would really take some difficult times to bring the smaller municipalities into line with such a thing.

[Ice_Queen88]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow73

No, there's absolutely no truth to it. It's something some of us on boards have debated as to whether it would be good or not but there is no movement I am aware of to get any sort of effort in regards to this moving forward.

Most of us think it's a great idea as it would reduce some levels of administration and give the region more perceived leverage to bring in jobs but no one seems to think that cities like Jax, NLR, Maumelle feel they could gain much out of such a deal. It would really take some difficult times to bring the smaller municipalities into line with such a thing.

North Little Rock is Little Rock really, it is northern Little Rock, as the name still has Little Rock in it and add North.

[Stormcrow73]

Originally Posted by Ice_Queen88

North Little Rock is Little Rock really, it is northern Little Rock, as the name still has Little Rock in it and add North.

HUH? Not sure I follow, NLR is a separate city with it's own mayor, PD, FD, and what not. NLR is experiencing a very nice resurgence with lots of new development going on in Argenta and Dickey Stephens Park was a HUGE coup for NLR. That town is progressing nicely right now and there's no reason at all to think the citizens would go for a consolidation with LR to possibly get their neighborhoods shoved on the back burner.

[Sam I Am]

Maybe the confusion comes from referring to West Little Rock, Little Rock, North Little Rock? But no, North Little Rock and Little Rock are two distinctly different towns, each with their own government. You won't see a merger in our lifetime.

[Ice_Queen88]

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

Maybe the confusion comes from referring to West Little Rock, Little Rock, North Little Rock? But no, North Little Rock and Little Rock are two distinctly different towns, each with their own government. You won't see a merger in our lifetime.

But North Little Rock says it plainly, Little Rock. Sure it has its own police, mayor, etc. but why call it N. Little Rock then?? I think it would be good move to merge. All it would be is dropping the North off of the name Little Rock. North Little Rock has mostly everything Little Rock has and North Little Rock and Sherwood, although they each have own mayors and police, they don't really have a city center, a downtown area is what I am talking about, they are just like Little Rock continuing on north, except for the seperate governments. I think Farmington is a good example of what I am trying to talk about here.

[strumpeace]

North Little Rock has a distinctive downtown. If Argenta continues to progress the way it's supposed to, it will become even more distinctive in the coming years.

Northern Little Rock, btw, is simply downtown Little Rock.

[Sam I Am]

I guess it all goes back to your original post...is this true about a merger? No, it is not. Not even being discussed. Not gonna happen. And NWA isn't going to merge into Walty-town either. Whatever the pros might be for merger, and I honestly do not see them other than issues with names, it's simply not in the works.

[Ice_Queen88]

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

I guess it all goes back to your original post...is this true about a merger? No, it is not. Not even being discussed. Not gonna happen. And NWA isn't going to merge into Walty-town either. Whatever the pros might be for merger, and I honestly do not see them other than issues with names, it's simply not in the works.

Don't count it out, remember New York City's consolidation?? Before the 1898 consolidation of New York, only Manhattan and The Bronx was New York City while Brooklyn was a seperate city nearing New York in size(like a lot of the towns in Northwest Arkansas are close to each other in population, Queens was a collection of small towns (Northwest Arkansas which also has quite a collection of small towns around it like Lowell, Elm Springs, Bethel Heights, Farmington) and Staten Island was the city of Richmond and they all merged into one big city.

[Stormcrow73]

Originally Posted by Ice_Queen88

But North Little Rock says it plainly, Little Rock. Sure it has its own police, mayor, etc. but why call it N. Little Rock then?? I think it would be good move to merge. All it would be is dropping the North off of the name Little Rock. North Little Rock has mostly everything Little Rock has and North Little Rock and Sherwood, although they each have own mayors and police, they don't really have a city center, a downtown area is what I am talking about, they are just like Little Rock continuing on north, except for the seperate governments. I think Farmington is a good example of what I am trying to talk about here.

I assure you, people in North Little Rock do NOT consider themselves an extension or suburb of Little Rock. And BTW, NLR DOES have a downtown/city center. It may not have big buildings but it does have a professional baseball park and an arena.

It really sounds like you're viewing such an undertaking more akin to an annexation which it most assuredly would not be. And people in NLR would NEVER vote to annex into LR!!

A real merger/consolidation which removes 2 administrative systems and replaces them with 1 new system is an entirely different beast because now these populations will be within the boundaries of a NEW incorporated city with a new name (be it Little Rock, New Little Rock, Pulaski City or anything else you can dream up). As I understand, it works just in precisely the same manner as two merging S-corps where both corporations are replaced by a single new corporation. Whereas a buyout would be the business analog of an annex.

This merger is far from an easy task because you must reconcile school systems, tax rates, and every other detail of city operations instead of replacing the annexed city's government, tax rates, budget, etc, with the annexing city's.

This whole concept sounds fantastic on paper and in our minds regarding the end result but it would be a total nightmare during the implementation. I know Nashville pulled off a consolidation with it's outlying county but I imagine that wound up working more like an invisible annexation since Nashville dominated the landscape there. I just recently went through a "merger" that would be an analog to this situation where a very large company came in bought the company I worked for but in order to retain the identity and by extension the accomplish of the company I was with, chose to merge the two companies. This formed a new corporation with it's own stock which was wholly owned by a holding company (the company which initiated the purchase agreement). In the example of Nashville, Nashville would be the holding company and the new county wide "city" would be the newly formed corporation wholly "owned" by Nashville.

Now...I could much more easily fathom NLR making a grab to annex Sherwood...