U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 10-27-2014, 07:48 AM
 
545 posts, read 817,040 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Do you think in the future many municipalities will merge with one another, forming larger cities? New York City was originally 5 counties, and once they merged, the city really took off. i think if other areas did this, it would prove beneficial as well. for example, if a few counties in northern NJ merged, they could function as one single city and be as big as Philadelphia, population and GDP wise. what are your thoughts on this idea of mergers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2014, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by gottaq View Post
Do you think in the future many municipalities will merge with one another, forming larger cities? New York City was originally 5 counties, and once they merged, the city really took off. i think if other areas did this, it would prove beneficial as well. for example, if a few counties in northern NJ merged, they could function as one single city and be as big as Philadelphia, population and GDP wise. what are your thoughts on this idea of mergers?
It's a great idea, but it will never happen.

People don't like losing political autonomy. Annexation of already incorporated areas began becoming more difficult in the late 19th century, and in most areas was totally DOA by 1930 or so. First the major "carrot" cities offered (access to city infrastructure, including water and sewer coverage) began being provided by smaller municipalities. Then people outside of cities began distrusting/disliking them much more broadly in the mid 20th century, and tax rates started varying widely, which pretty much killed the idea.

It's worth noting, however, that if you look at the history of how almost any U.S. city grew, there was some degree of involuntary annexation. Some regions did actually vote in support of annexation, but others were annexed through special acts of the legislature, or because rules only required majority support of the total number of voters in both municipalities, rather than support in each municipality respectively.

If there is a wave of municipal consolidation in the U.S., it's going to have to be done via fiat on the state level. I don't see this happening any time soon, even in states which desperately need it, like PA and NJ. People really like living in boroughs of 300 people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 08:30 AM
 
56,674 posts, read 80,973,859 times
Reputation: 12526
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
It's a great idea, but it will never happen.

People don't like losing political autonomy. Annexation of already incorporated areas began becoming more difficult in the late 19th century, and in most areas was totally DOA by 1930 or so. First the major "carrot" cities offered (access to city infrastructure, including water and sewer coverage) began being provided by smaller municipalities. Then people outside of cities began distrusting/disliking them much more broadly in the mid 20th century, and tax rates started varying widely, which pretty much killed the idea.

It's worth noting, however, that if you look at the history of how almost any U.S. city grew, there was some degree of involuntary annexation. Some regions did actually vote in support of annexation, but others were annexed through special acts of the legislature, or because rules only required majority support of the total number of voters in both municipalities, rather than support in each municipality respectively.

If there is a wave of municipal consolidation in the U.S., it's going to have to be done via fiat on the state level. I don't see this happening any time soon, even in states which desperately need it, like PA and NJ. People really like living in boroughs of 300 people.
^This and at best, you may see a city-county consolidation similar to what Augusta and Richmond County GA did about 15-20 years ago. Besides that slim possibility, things will most likely stay like it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
3,145 posts, read 2,830,373 times
Reputation: 2858
Never going to happen as long as a county has wealthy neighborhoods. For instance, Allegheny county has over 100 municipalities. The rich ones don't want to take on the poor ones' burdens. Another concern is unions. Trying to break those down in this state is near impossible, especially the teacher's unions that don't want to see schools closed. On top of this, we have wide spread corruption and so many government representatives that it is a joke. They don't want to lose their jobs. These are some of the reasons why consolidation is never going to happen in PA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 12:02 PM
 
32,094 posts, read 33,002,049 times
Reputation: 14956
Quote:
Originally Posted by gottaq View Post
Do you think in the future many municipalities will merge with one another, forming larger cities? New York City was originally 5 counties, and once they merged, the city really took off. i think if other areas did this, it would prove beneficial as well. for example, if a few counties in northern NJ merged, they could function as one single city and be as big as Philadelphia, population and GDP wise. what are your thoughts on this idea of mergers?
As far I understood, NYC was 3 counties and 2 cities (as Brooklyn was a city as well New York/Manhattan) before the merge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61 View Post
As far I understood, NYC was 3 counties and 2 cities (as Brooklyn was a city as well New York/Manhattan) before the merge.
It was more complicated than that. New York annexed three towns which now make up the West Bronx in 1874. It's unclear if they actually voted in favor of annexation from the sources I have seen. The 1898 vote on annexation did win a majority most places, but the Town of Westchester (now part of the Bronx) and the Town of Flushing (in Queens) voted against but ended up being amalgamated anyway.

Also, of course both the cities of New York and Brooklyn had annexed their entire counties in the run-up to consolidation. That said, that normally isn't considered to be part of the amalgamation process which created Greater New York.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,424 posts, read 12,427,921 times
Reputation: 4857
Eastern Passaic, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union and Northern Middlesex (New Jersey) plus Southern Westchester and Nassau (New York) will be all called New York City in 20 years from now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,424 posts, read 12,427,921 times
Reputation: 4857
Would be nice if the US limited itself to 50 CSA's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 02:01 PM
 
56,674 posts, read 80,973,859 times
Reputation: 12526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040 View Post
Eastern Passaic, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union and Northern Middlesex (New Jersey) plus Southern Westchester and Nassau (New York) will be all called New York City in 20 years from now.
That can't happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2014, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
That can't happen.
Yeah, there is no legal precedent for a city crossing state lines.

That said, it would be cool if NYC could trade Staten Island for most of Hudson County, NJ. Say everything east of the Hackensack River, except Seacaucus. That area fits in with NYC much better than the current fifth borough anyway.
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:

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 > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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