U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-15-2015, 04:44 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,374,018 times
Reputation: 1298

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWOH View Post
It seems now that the discussion of Regionalism is now coming back in a serious manner: ....
I'm quoting some text from the original post in this thread to segue into an idea that I've been thinking about more-and-more.

During it's boom and expansion, Dayton grew geographically and engulfed other towns that once were standalone places - maybe not incorporated, but not connected to Dayton originally. Once Dayton wanted Oakwood and some of the land that Kettering and Moraine occupy. I'm glad that idea failed.

Is there any reason that Dayton couldn't be sliced-up into six or seven new suburbs? Here is an old map for reference from 1895.

They could do away with the fiction that they "need" that 2.25% income tax and all the overhead associated with overseeing the areas that are rapidly being denuded of buildings of all types. Some of those areas on the East and West sides ( see map link ) could go back to just being townships.

Places like the Oregon and South Park could become like Oakwood. What benefit is there to the West Side areas to being attached to the City of Dayton?

Does anyone know of any other city getting rid of former territory? I don't.

I have no axe to grind or loyalty to any specific area continuing to be a part of the city, but I would be curious if people are really married to the idea of keeping the geographic area as-is or open to spinning-off some territory. I'd like to know if anyone agrees or thinks I'm an idiot ( not in general, but because of this idea ).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2015, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,014,610 times
Reputation: 2334
I'll just quote myself from the comments section of Esrati's blog:

(Background: His original post was about a neighborhood nuisance family that was known for multiple break-ins and other problems.)

Quote:
A post like this, if you concede that there’s little any one man can do to affect his or her city government, is a powerful argument for secession. Not “seccession” in the Civil War context, but rather what Ohio calls “detachment.” There’s a provision in the Revised Code (R.C. 709.38 and 709.39) that allow the detachment of any land area within a municipality and the formation of a new township within those limits.

In a case like this where you have a neighborhood that is trying to get itself together – South Park – you instead have the rest of the city holding it back.

By that, I mean an unbalanced transfer of tax payments vs. services received (you pay city and property taxes but don’t receive much in the way of police protection). I’ve read your blog for a couple years now and seen how the city has a history of picking and choosing its winners. As the property values rise, City Hall is liable to see it as a cash cow that can be used to subsidize more of their failed projects (like buying properties of dubious investment value) rather than actually investing where the city could see returns.

On the other hand, a successful detachment of South Park – a new Van Buren Township, if you will – would be free from City Hall to continue developing. Given the compact nature of the neighborhood it could be easily patrolled on contract with a couple Montgomery County sheriff’s deputies… paid for with local property tax money that stays in the neighborhood. Similarly with school districts, a partnership with an existing charter or public school district could do wonders to make the neighborhood more desirable.

The neighborhood would remain part of the Dayton “region” without being held back by City Hall – and that development would continue to accelerate, even if Twin Towers or the East End… still under Nan’s thumb… continue to languish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2015, 09:33 PM
 
3,515 posts, read 3,784,740 times
Reputation: 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV View Post
I'm quoting some text from the original post in this thread to segue into an idea that I've been thinking about more-and-more.

During it's boom and expansion, Dayton grew geographically and engulfed other towns that once were standalone places - maybe not incorporated, but not connected to Dayton originally. Once Dayton wanted Oakwood and some of the land that Kettering and Moraine occupy. I'm glad that idea failed.

Is there any reason that Dayton couldn't be sliced-up into six or seven new suburbs? Here is an old map for reference from 1895.

They could do away with the fiction that they "need" that 2.25% income tax and all the overhead associated with overseeing the areas that are rapidly being denuded of buildings of all types. Some of those areas on the East and West sides ( see map link ) could go back to just being townships.

Places like the Oregon and South Park could become like Oakwood. What benefit is there to the West Side areas to being attached to the City of Dayton?

Does anyone know of any other city getting rid of former territory? I don't.

I have no axe to grind or loyalty to any specific area continuing to be a part of the city, but I would be curious if people are really married to the idea of keeping the geographic area as-is or open to spinning-off some territory. I'd like to know if anyone agrees or thinks I'm an idiot ( not in general, but because of this idea ).
Sounds like a good idea to me!

So separate "cities" that operate entirely separate from one another but still fall under the umbrella of "Dayton"? Seems like that would align better with common perception anyways...

And an added benefit is Dayton's total population could grow with a city/county merger while each unique city could retain it's current government, schools, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 12:32 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,374,018 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWOH View Post
So separate "cities" that operate entirely separate from one another but still fall under the umbrella of "Dayton"? Seems like that would align better with common perception anyways...
I grew up in the center of Oakwood ( not kinda, but pretty much the exact geographic center ) and always addressed my envelopes as Dayton, Ohio, 45419.

Of course, there are three Oakwoods in Ohio and only one Kettering or Trotwood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2015, 02:07 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,374,018 times
Reputation: 1298
I was editing, but got pulled away, so here is what I meant to put in my original post above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
I'll just quote myself from the comments section of Esrati's blog:
(Background: His original post was about a neighborhood nuisance family that was known for multiple break-ins and other problems.)
I loved that quote. Thank you.

In 1960, the city of Dayton had a population of 262k. In 2010, it was 141k That's a reduction of nearly half ( 46% ).

What was the population of police, fire, mayor's staff, building inspectors, purchasing department, finance department, waste collection, water, ... back then? Have these been cut in half over the last 50 years? What's the overall population of city employees - now versus then?

Those on the city payroll will always justify their positions, but these are wants versus needs.

A breakup would force the city to downsize. Right now, the population of taxpayers is no longer the well-paid blue collar population that the city once had. Now, I would expect that the average city employee makes a lot more than the average person paying their salaries.

There are empires that need to collapse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2015, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,014,610 times
Reputation: 2334
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV View Post
In 1960, the city of Dayton had a population of 262k. In 2010, it was 141k That's a reduction of nearly half ( 46% ).

What was the population of police, fire, mayor's staff, building inspectors, purchasing department, finance department, waste collection, water, ... back then? Have these been cut in half over the last 50 years? What's the overall population of city employees - now versus then?

Those on the city payroll will always justify their positions, but these are wants versus needs.

A breakup would force the city to downsize. Right now, the population of taxpayers is no longer the well-paid blue collar population that the city once had. Now, I would expect that the average city employee makes a lot more than the average person paying their salaries.

There are empires that need to collapse.
While I agree with everything you've said and certainly believe there's money to be saved in right-sizing many city departments, I'm going to take the other side of the argument for a few minutes, if only just because:

1) Even if the city's population dropped by another 50% to 70,000 - it would still have to maintain the streets, sewer lines, police department with enough vehicles to cover the land area, etc.

2) Even if you detached the areas into townships or discrete cities of their own, it's unlikely they would have the tax base to support themselves. Detachment is something that will help one part of town succeed while letting another fall behind (rather than like in Dayton, where they're all slowly being dragged down).

3) Regardless of the level of income of the average city resident, the city has to pay a salary that's competitive. Otherwise they'll have a hard time attracting the talent and leadership that the city needs.

Up until a couple years ago, the city also had a residency requirement - which meant that in order to work for the city you also had to live in the city. That made it even more difficult to get talent to work for the city... and even so, you had the Carriage Trails subdivision that was full of city employees... while in Dayton city limits, it was part of Huber's school district for a reason.

4) Right-sizing the city's employee department is a little easier said than done. It's due to a little legal distinction that says a public employee has a property interest in the job he or she has (if it's a permanent position) and cannot be fired except for just cause.

That's why you always see public employees go on paid administrative leave if they do something egregious, pending an investigation.... because unless there's a finding of just cause, they have a right to their job. So the only real way to reduce the city's payroll without a mess of lawsuits is to let their numbers dwindle through attrition. But that's a prospect that could take decades... because many city employees know how cushy their gig is, compared to anything else available in the private sector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2015, 11:37 AM
 
3,515 posts, read 3,784,740 times
Reputation: 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
Up until a couple years ago, the city also had a residency requirement - which meant that in order to work for the city you also had to live in the city. That made it even more difficult to get talent to work for the city... and even so, you had the Carriage Trails subdivision that was full of city employees... while in Dayton city limits, it was part of Huber's school district for a reason.
Great points, but right now I wanted to clarify that the area/subdivision is NOT Carriage Trails.

Carriage Trails in in Huber Heights city limits, but lies within Miami Co. and the Bethel School district.

The subdivision to which you are referring is commonly known as Pheasant Ridge (or also Forest Ridge or Quail Hollow), and is in Dayton City Limits, Montgomery Co, but served by a mix of Huber, Fairborn, and Mad River Schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 12:58 PM
 
252 posts, read 246,196 times
Reputation: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWOH View Post
It seems now that the discussion of Regionalism is now coming back in a serious manner:

OneDayton pushes for one consolidated government | www.mydaytondailynews.com
(behind the paywall, sorry!)

Or Esrati wrote it up on his blog:
The secret group trying to do regionalism without telling anyone: One Dayton


A lot of big names behind it, including Mont. Co. commissioner Dan Foley. What was particularly interesting to me was in the interviews, Riverside's mayor was skeptical while Centerville's mayor seemed to only be slightly reserved from a whole-hearted endorsement.


I'm personally 100% for it. There is way too much in-county competition going on, and I think each city within Montgomery Co. has a distinct set of core competencies which sets it apart from every other city in the county. That way there could be a more concentrated effort behind building the north and west valley as a logistics hub, Austin Pike / I-75 as an IT / Data Analysis corridor, Riverside / Kettering into a defense support hub, etc. It could also help keep the mixed-use movement prospering downtown, throw more support behind low-cost pocket stores and offices throughout Dayton city limits, and eliminate a lot of the retail cannibalization from which this metro area has continually suffered for years now.
Regionalism is just another way to rob the suburbs of their tax base and spend their money in the hood. Take practically any Ohio suburb, from the nicest to the most modest. Practically all of them plow their streets and handle road repairs efficiently. Police calls and fire calls are handled promptly. Also, the curb appeal, zoning and what they allow people to build are better handled in the suburbs. There is far better curb appeal. That's 99% of what people care about.

In a big city or metro government, that level of service goes down the tubes. Police calls take forever since all the cops are fighting some gang war downtown. Street plows? Forget it. We have to plow Ohio 4 and 48 first. Buildings? Let developers slap up the lowest common denominator.

That's why in Indy, most of the growth is outside the metro government of Marion County, which is quickly becoming ghetto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 02:28 PM
 
3,515 posts, read 3,784,740 times
Reputation: 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by WheresTheBeef View Post
Regionalism is just another way to rob the suburbs of their tax base and spend their money in the hood. Take practically any Ohio suburb, from the nicest to the most modest. Practically all of them plow their streets and handle road repairs efficiently. Police calls and fire calls are handled promptly. Also, the curb appeal, zoning and what they allow people to build are better handled in the suburbs. There is far better curb appeal. That's 99% of what people care about.

In a big city or metro government, that level of service goes down the tubes. Police calls take forever since all the cops are fighting some gang war downtown. Street plows? Forget it. We have to plow Ohio 4 and 48 first. Buildings? Let developers slap up the lowest common denominator.

That's why in Indy, most of the growth is outside the metro government of Marion County, which is quickly becoming ghetto.
You might have had me agreeing with parts of your argument if it weren't for the sensationalism. I bolded the areas that stuck out in particular.

Unfortunately it is attitudes exactly like yours that limit any progress or change from happening. The "us vs. them" - we are actually all in this together.

Most all of those suburbs wouldn't have a reason to exist if it weren't for Dayton itself. Think about that for a second. Their health is DIRECTLY tied to the health of the core. As it goes, so do its surroundings. It's not an "us vs. them".


The argument you could make against that point would be WPAFB. And you would be right, it is a major employment center with services and needs that almost make it function like its own city. So we are fortunate to have two major "centers of gravity" for our region. But keep in mind which one is bigger than the other, which one holds 90% of the jobs, which one we are known for.

We're in the Dayton region, not the WPAFB region. We all play on the same team. Let's start worrying less about what parts we do or don't like and more about the fact that any team is only as good as its weakest member.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 03:09 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,374,018 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
1) Even if the city's population dropped by another 50% to 70,000 - it would still have to maintain the streets, sewer lines, police department with enough vehicles to cover the land area, etc.
This is still a want vs. need argument. The city is losing neighborhoods and whole blocks are going dark. If there are still a couple of houses there, they can go back to dirt streets and no streetlights or allow the city to buy them out for market value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
2) Even if you detached the areas into townships or discrete cities of their own, it's unlikely they would have the tax base to support themselves. Detachment is something that will help one part of town succeed while letting another fall behind (rather than like in Dayton, where they're all slowly being dragged down).
That's the whole point. At least some areas will do OK, like Oakwood, for instance. An Oregon/S.Park city could, at least not be dragged down by the inevitable decline of the mother city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
3) Regardless of the level of income of the average city resident, the city has to pay a salary that's competitive. Otherwise they'll have a hard time attracting the talent and leadership that the city needs.
Um, ... you are assuming that the people there are top notch and would excel in the private sector.

It used to be an accepted fact that government employees got paid less because they didn't have to work as hard and got better vacation, holidays, and pensions. Now they make more than the public sector average in part because they have continued to get raises ( that they complain about ) while the people paying for them have lost their jobs and had to replace them with lower paying ones ( rinse .... repeat ... ).

Cities play against each other - racheting-up pay, little by little, so that it appears that without matching Indianapolis, Columbus, ... pay/benefits, Dayton will have to start hiring ( gasp! ) ... laid-off private sector workers ( who don't have Masters Degrees ).

Public sector wages ( especially for Congress ) should be a percentage of average public sector wages that was prevalent decades ago. The skewing of that ratio is totally unsustainable. The public sector can't be paid unless the private sector can afford to pay them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
4) Right-sizing the city's employee department is a little easier said than done. It's due to a little legal distinction that says a public employee has a property interest in the job he or she has (if it's a permanent position) and cannot be fired except for just cause.
People still retire and over time, the workforce can be managed through attrition. As much as old promises by retired/dead politician's anger me, I would hate to see large scale layoffs as some decaying cities have had to do ( ie. Camden, NJ ).

The existing public sector workforce has everything to lose if they don't figure out how to downsize. They are all expecting a pension. Detroit got so bloated that they are going to default on their pensions. Again, that's not fair to the city employees who were counting on that pension. It's even more unfair to expect anyone other than Dayton city residents to pay for it. It's even MORE unfair to expect a population of far poorer and far less city residents to pay for it.

Last edited by IDtheftV; 02-27-2015 at 03:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top