Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few things to consider about city-county consolidation:
-These mergers would gobble up land in the remainder of each county. Just because a city/county consolidate does not mean that the entire thing becomes a city. Any already incorporated place would remain so, unless the decided to surrender their charter.
-So, considering the above, it would not be as attractive for cities with lots of in-county incorporated suburbs that take up most of the remainder of the population, or that essentially surround the city, to merge with the county.
-This is primarily done to cut down on duplicate services, not for population bragging rights. It tends to work best in counties where there are few incorporated places, and where most of the population is already concentrated in the city, or lies in unincorporated territory. Duplicate services such as police, fire, EMS, school districts, etc. can be streamlined, but there's not always a big cost savings.
-Laws vary by state, but I would imagine that there would be some barriers for most cities to overcome...if it has to be passed by referendum, then both city and county residents will have to vote on it, and most of the time, county residents do not want the higher taxes associated with being in the city. On top of that, county residents are likely not going to see an increase in services, unless they are in a pretty urban unincorporated area.
If you look at a lot of the city-county consolidations -- most are midsize-large cities in terms of metro area (I'm not going to count the old school independent cities with smaller land areas like Philly, San Fran, St. Louis).
This isn't something you do as a federal tax dollar grab, or to boost your city self-esteem by increasing the population rank. It doesn't *really* move you up any tiers, though it can get a midsize city more recognition than it previously had.
In Nashville's case, the reason to consolidate was primarily white flight driven. The city took up a tiny amount of land area (26 sq miles in the 1960s)...whites were fleeing the city, and the tax base was crumbling. The surrounding neighborhoods in the county were booming, but completely lacked the infrastructure and services to adequately serve them. County consolidation allowed for the city to "recover" its tax base, and the county to receive increased services. The services were split into 2 districts (with separate tax rates)...urban services for the old city boundaries, and the more built up suburban areas, and general services for the rest of the county. That system still exists today.
For Nashville, it made sense. And I think it worked. With the direction the city was headed, we might have never really "grown up" in the 60s-70s-80s when lots of cities were hemorrhaging population.
If Minneapolis were to consolidate with Hennepin County, it's population would jump from 388,000 to 1.2 million. If St. Paul were to consolidate with Ramsey County, it's population would increase from 288,00 to over 520,000 and the resulting land area would still be much smaller than most "major" U.S. cities at 155.78 sq mi
No, because the losses in Wayne County would accelerate. No one downriver wants to be in Detroit, and those communities would empty out if Detroit annexed them.
On the other hand, it wouldn't necessarily be a traditional annexation and it would change the dynamics of representation at the city-county level. So, it isn't like the former city of Detroit would necessarily dominate.
A city like Buffalo would go up to about 11th in population if it consolidated with Erie County.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 05-16-2013 at 11:26 AM..
St. Louis the city seems to have an incredibly antagonistic relationship with St. Louis the county. Merging them, if possible, and quelling this sort of infighting for the region would probably go a long way. There are also already fairly seamless areas such as the Delmar Loop that span both and would probably be helped that much more if there was just a single set of rules and services.
I think for St.Louis city to become the seat of St. Louis county would be awesome and take away my municipality vs that municipality. It would also reduce the competition with the suburbs and give a more regional downtown. All of St. Louis county doesn't have to be part of St. Louis city. Maybe the city could annex some areas inside of 170 and let the suburbs organize as cities r ranging from 30 to 100k. Hopefully that will encourage smart growth and enhance the over all quality of life.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 05-16-2013 at 11:26 AM..
On the other hand, it wouldn't necessarily be a traditional annexation and it would change the dynamics of representation at the city-county level. So, it isn't like the former city of Detroit would necessarily dominate.
Detroit is by the largest city in Wayne County combined with Michigan being very progressive in their view of ancillary cities as tax chattel. Revenue sharing actually goes all the way up to the state level, and all cities are suffering in the form of reduced revenue sharing from the collectivist coffers.
I don't know, to me it seems pretty clear Detroit would be the big fish in a pond of minnows in a city-county consolidation scenario. The minnows out weight the big fish collectively, but you'd need near unanimous. That could end up happening in the hypothetical situation it occurred, but since there's absolutely no benefit to being annexed for the suburbs, it'd never get that far. They've been moving the other direction away from tax chattel status to the sinking ship rather than running to it with open arms.
Detroit's problems are its own and the solutions are going to have to come from itself rather than being bankrolled by non-resident Michiganders.
Detroit is by the largest city in Wayne County combined with Michigan being very progressive in their view of ancillary cities as tax chattel. Revenue sharing actually goes all the way up to the state level, and all cities are suffering in the form of reduced revenue sharing from the collectivist coffers.
I don't know, to me it seems pretty clear Detroit would be the big fish in a pond of minnows in a city-county consolidation scenario. The minnows out weight the big fish collectively, but you'd need near unanimous. That could end up happening in the hypothetical situation it occurred, but since there's absolutely no benefit to being annexed for the suburbs, it'd never get that far. They've been moving the other direction away from tax chattel status to the sinking ship rather than running to it with open arms.
Detroit's problems are its own and the solutions are going to have to come from itself rather than being bankrolled by non-resident Michiganders.
I don't know if anything has to be unanimous, but I think the dynamics would be difference, if the city and county consolidated.
Seattle, its population would jump to 3 million. It would now be the official home to 8 fortune 500 companies within city limits. The city would have a main tech cwnter and 2 downtown corperate areas.
1. Los Angeles- (LA County)- 9,962,789
2. New York- (NY, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Richmond) 8,336,697
3. Chicago- (Cook) 5,231,351
4. Houston- (Harris) 4,253,700
5. Phoenix- (Maricopa) 3,942,169
6. San Diego-(San Diego) 3,140,069
7. Miami- (Miami-Dade) 2,554,766
8. Dallas-(Dallas) 2,416,014
9. Seattle- (kings) 2,007,440
10. Las Vegas- (Clark) 2,000,759
11. Fort Worth- (Tarrant) 1,849,815
12. San Jose- (santa Clara) 1,809,378
13. Detroit- (Wayne) 1,802,096
14. Fort Lauderdale (Broward) 1,780,172
15. San Antonio (Bexar) 1,756,153
16. Philadelphia (Philadelphia) 1,536,471
17. Oakland (Alameda) 1,529,875
18. Cambridge (Middlesex) 1,518,171
19. Sacramento (Sacramento) 1,436,105
20. Cleveland (Cayahoga) 1,270,294
21. Tampa 1,267,775
22. Pittsburgh 1,227,066
23. Columbus 1,178,799
24. Orlando 1,169,107
25. Minneapolis 1,168,431
I ignored the suburban counties cause the top ten was littered with smaller californian cities from large land area counties such as Santa Ana, Riverside and San Bernadino
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
