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.
St. Louis City has a city earnings tax that applies if you work in the city regardless of your residency. That might be a sticking point but many county residents already pay it.
Apparently, there are several ways that this has been done. The last time heard, St. Louis was surrounded by 96 small municipalities that had their own police forces and city administrations. There are a dozen or more school districts. There is still a considerable amount of unincorporated residential neighborhood areas under county jurisdiction. How all of this gets reorganized (or not) under the new plan remains to be seen.
I am assuming that the state legislature will have a vote on this issue and with the perpetual rural vs. city warfare in Missouri, it might die an ugly death if it gets that far.
The group that's leading the charge, Better Together, hasn't released their official plan as of yet. Details have been released thus far though, and it appears that none of the current municipalities would be reimagined, instead they would see their powers greatly diminished. The combined city/county would have one mayor and one city/countywide council, one police department, one court system, one elected prosecutor, assessor, etc. The individual municipalities would continue to exist, including their legislative bodies to some degree, but they would lose their individual police departments, abilities to levy taxes, etc, and it sounds like their legislative bodies would become subordinate to the countywide one to be based out of downtown St Louis. Existing school districts and fire departments are to remain untouched.
Better Together's goal is to get the necessary number of signatures to force a constitutional amendment on the 2020 ballot, or at least that's my understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
There's no way Missouri's horrible right-wing and regressive state government would allow this.
They hate Saint Louis with a passion and there's not a chance they would do something that benefits the city.
It's being pushed by a huge Republican donor, with potential support coming from the county executive and city mayor. If they're able to convince the rest of Missouri that it's in the state's interest in terms of keeping the economic engine healthy and by saving money by getting rid of various levels of government and bureaucracy, then there's a chance.
As others have stated though, this will likely require the rest of Missouri to ram this down the city's and the county's throats.
Yeah I know that. So something more permanent or easier to analyze should be established to ensure that any suburban county is included in one supra-county government.
Please show me some sources that prove this, because I've heard the argument, but have never seen data backing that up.
"In many of the school districts spending the most, these proportions are drastically different. According to Griffith, New York does very little to regulate how much revenue school districts can raise locally. As a result, six of the top spending districts are in wealthy neighborhoods in Long Island and Westchester County and get an outsized share — from 73% to 93% — of revenue from local sources." https://247wallst.com/special-report...hest-spending/
^There are no poor cities on this list.
"IN MORE THAN HALF OF the states in the U.S., the poorest school districts do not receive funding to address their students' increased needs – just the latest data point to shine a spotlight on funding gaps that plague the country's public education system.
School districts with the highest rates of poverty receive about $1,000 less per student in state and local funding than those with the lowest rates of poverty, according to a new report released Tuesday by The Education Trust.
While the funding gaps among states vary significantly, Illinois, Missouri, New York and Alabama rank among the worst. In Illinois, for example, the poorest districts received 22 percent less in state and local funding than the lowest-poverty districts...
When accounting for the additional needs, the report shows that highest-poverty districts receive about $2,000, or 16 percent, less per student than low-poverty districts...
The report also looked a funding disparities between districts serving the most students of color and those serving the least, finding an even larger funding disparity than that of poverty levels. On average, districts serving the most students of color received about $1,800 per student, or 16 percent." https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...t-less-funding
"In 2012-13, the typical wealthy Pennsylvania school district had about $3,058 more per student than a typical poor district, according to Mark Price, a labor economist at the liberal Keystone Research Center.
By 2016-17, that gap was $3,778, according to Price.
In Philadelphia, for instance, the School District spent $9,062 per student in 2016-17, excluding construction costs. The typical wealthy district, meanwhile, spent $15,748, according to Price's analysis, which looked at the 100 wealthiest districts and used enrollment figures that accounted for differing levels of need among students.
"School districts that serve large populations of students of color and students from low-income families receive far less funding than those serving White and more affluent students...
In the U.S. today, school districts serving the largest populations of Black, Latino, or American Indian students receive roughly $1,800, or 13 percent, less per student in state and local funding than those serving the fewest students of color." https://edtrust.org/resource/funding-gaps-2018/
Here are some stats from Colorado: Map: How Much Do Colorado's School Districts Spend Per Pupil? | CPR
Denver Public Schools-largest district in Colorado-$9544per pupil
Jefferson County SD-largest Denver suburban district in CO; second largest district in CO-$8095 per pupil Note that Denver spends 15% more than Jeffco.
Douglas County SD-second largest suburban Denver district, third largest district in CO-$7431
Cherry Creek SD-third largest suburban Denver district, 4th largest in CO,wealthy district where John Elway lives-$8562
Aurora Public Schools-4th largest suburban Denver district (Adams-Arapahoe 28-J) $8085
Adams 12 Five Star (Northglenn-Thornton)-5th largest suburban Denver district, 6th in state-$7562
St. Vrain Valley-7th in state, not quite a Denver suburb-$7208
Boulder Valley-8th in state, wealthy college town district-not quite a Denver suburb-$9247 https://www.niche.com/k12/search/lar...ts/s/colorado/
Some more suburban districts:
Littleton-Denver suburb-$8653
Adams District 14-$9432
Mapleton-$7486
Westminster-$8791
I could waste a lot of time looking up the demographics of these districts. I can tell you, Denver and Aurora have the largest minority populations. Here is a graph of demographics. Colorado School District Demographics
The city and county of Honolulu are one and the same, extending over the entirety of Oahu Island.
Hawaii doesn't have any local government below the level of it's four counties. Well, technically it has five counties, but the fifth is a former leper colony with only 88 people, and has no self-government.
Regardless, municipalities have no official recognition in Hawaii. Honolulu does not count as a city-county merger though, because there was never a city government.
Yep. Exactly my opinion on most places like this. Whether it's this set up with the county using the city for its benefit as in Baltimore too. Or if it's two polar opposite cities next to one another where one is far wealthier, but the government seat or economic hub, and the wealthy suburbanites use it to their benefit. Or even MSAs as a whole. Why should cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, etc. be full of neighborhoods with extreme poverty, with suburbs in their MSAs that use all of the city's resources like transit, tourism, hospitality, dining/sports/entertainment, airports, etc.?
I know in the city limits of each of those cities I listed, there are nice areas. But there is no denying their suburbs are wealthy AF, with those suburban counties/cities making up part of the MSA, and taking advantage of the jobs, connectivity, sports, airports, etc. of their host cities like parasites? They work in the cities, but don't contribute their fair share of taxes to the police forces and firefighters who keep their sports venues and office buildings safe, and their taxes are brought back to their suburban towns for better educational facilities in the suburbs, while the poor residents of the host cities have abysmal schools and a dearth of funding.
I think any government-classified MSA should be required to share its resources better. You want jobs in the city in fancy office buildings but to live in the suburbs? Pay your fair share of taxes to the schools down the block so those students have a fighting chance to compete with your suburban town's schools. You want to feel safe working in your fancy office building in the city and not get stabbed when you go to sporting events and concerts in the city before returning home to your quite safe suburb at night? Pay your fair share of taxes to ensure your own safety in the city. You want the roads in and out of the city you refer to as your home because nobody knows the name of your white suburban town to be clean and well-paved? Pay some taxes to that city instead of repaving the same 17 streets named after different types of trees and the same 12 streets named after cities your sheltered kids probably can't even point to on a map. As far as I know, the major cities own their airports and they are city property. You like flying out of airports? Help the city pay for it better.
As you can see, I have a very strong dislike for the concept of suburbs. They enshrine white supremacy every way possible. Just like colonialism, the rich white people of the suburbs use the amenities and infrastructure of where the minorities live for their own benefit, leave it to decay, and never give back to it, then complain about how it's corrupt, dangerous, and dirty. Maybe if you didn't pillage all it's resources and supported it properly because you have the money by stealing it and keeping it, the place you "colonized" or work in wouldn't be so poor off.
Ok rant over. Sorry. I just hate the concept of suburbs.
Envy is not a good look. And neither is racism.
Dig down beneath the class-envy, anti-white nature of your rant, and a good point emerges: those who use the services of a city should help pay for them. However, what you overlook is that suburbanites are already helping to fund city services -- through the payment of state income taxes.
I live in the suburbs of Baltimore. Should I help pay for city schools? If so, then I should have a say in how they're run; there should be some suburban representation on the city school board. But the larger point is, I already do help pay for them, through my state income taxes. I can't speak for other states, but I know that Maryland shovels a whole lot of state funding into Baltimore. In FY 2018, the state (which, as noted, includes me) paid $12,104 per pupil in the city but less than half of that -- $5,447 -- in Howard County. My fellow county taxpayers and I fund my county's schools to the tune of $10,321 per pupil in county funding. Baltimore's equivalent local funding is $3,645.
Thus, Maryland is already doing what you advocate, by using state funding to level out the per-pupil funding across all of the state. So kindly don't tell me that I'm not paying my "fair share" for Baltimore's schools, because I already am, and then some.
My state taxes also pay for police protection, road maintenance, etc., via the state's aid to Baltimore. (And may I say, I'm getting no return for my investment; the condition of Baltimore's roads is atrocious.) As for our airport, it is owned and operated by the state, not the city. So I'm already paying for that, too.
It is true that Baltimore does contain some regionally significant cultural amenities. But I help pay for them every time I visit them and spend my money on admission fees, parking, food, etc. Would it be better for Baltimore if I kept my white, suburban self (and my green dollars) out of the city altogether? Would I be less "pillaging" and "colonizing" if I stayed away?
Dig down beneath the class-envy, anti-white nature of your rant, and a good point emerges: those who use the services of a city should help pay for them. However, what you overlook is that suburbanites are already helping to fund city services -- through the payment of state income taxes.
I live in the suburbs of Baltimore. Should I help pay for city schools? If so, then I should have a say in how they're run; there should be some suburban representation on the city school board. But the larger point is, I already do help pay for them, through my state income taxes. I can't speak for other states, but I know that Maryland shovels a whole lot of state funding into Baltimore. In FY 2018, the state (which, as noted, includes me) paid $12,104 per pupil in the city but less than half of that -- $5,447 -- in Howard County. My fellow county taxpayers and I fund my county's schools to the tune of $10,321 per pupil in county funding. Baltimore's equivalent local funding is $3,645.
Thus, Maryland is already doing what you advocate, by using state funding to level out the per-pupil funding across all of the state. So kindly don't tell me that I'm not paying my "fair share" for Baltimore's schools, because I already am, and then some.
My state taxes also pay for police protection, road maintenance, etc., via the state's aid to Baltimore. (And may I say, I'm getting no return for my investment; the condition of Baltimore's roads is atrocious.) As for our airport, it is owned and operated by the state, not the city. So I'm already paying for that, too.
It is true that Baltimore does contain some regionally significant cultural amenities. But I help pay for them every time I visit them and spend my money on admission fees, parking, food, etc. Would it be better for Baltimore if I kept my white, suburban self (and my green dollars) out of the city altogether? Would I be less "pillaging" and "colonizing" if I stayed away?
It's definitely not envy as I would never ever live in a suburb. It's also not racist to point out the history of suburbs in America was part of the white flight away from urban centers that left minorities destitute. And that's an entirely separate discussion.
As for you having more say in how schools are run? YES DEFINITELY! I would love the wealthy suburban parents to be able to have a shared input with the less fortunate parents of the poorer major city. Some collaboration would be wonderful, as would shared resources. The more a society mixes and shares ideas with one another, the better we all become. That's why I would honestly really like major regions to share in more ways than one. They ALL contribute to the success of a region, whether it be the small rural town on the edge of an MSA, the wealthy planned communities in the suburbs, the diverse streetcar suburbs, the densely-packed urban communities, and everyone in between.
Everyone needs to work together for the betterment of the region as a whole. For you, without Baltimore nearby, your suburb likely wouldn't serve any purpose or have any future. However, Baltimore equally relies on you spending your hard-earned dollars in the economy of the city itself. A city/county merger allows you and your neighbors to have some influence on what goes on in Baltimore, and maybe some outside thought is needed. With government consolidation, your tax contribution might even go DOWN, while the city of Baltimore improves and leads to even more growth throughout the merged region. With (hopefully) a lower cost of running one merged region, more could be spent on actually improving the merged region's education, infrastructure, safety, etc. instead of paying so many individual mayors, court staff, city councils, police departments, etc.
But right now, I see suburbs as having their cake and eating too. Suburbs want the amenities of being located near a large city, but many people in the suburbs don't understand the racist history of white flight and redlining and all that; instead, they blame local politics in the decaying city. I'd like us all to work towards a fairer system of governing that could be more easily accomplished through AT LEAST city/county mergers, but some form of supra-county governance like NYC or established by an-MSA type system could potentially be even more beneficial.
The accident of ones zip code from birth should not define them, but it often does in the US. In no way am I advocating for those who are doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, etc. in the suburbs to have the same lifestyle as those who dropped out of high school in the urban center. But providing everyone with a more even playing field from the start will only help us all in the long run. Better educational opportunities and better policing are two major things that can change the urban centers, and if you contribute to that success under the same government, of course you should get an equal voice and maybe you have some great ideas that have never been tried in Baltimore before? Who knows?
Here are some stats from Colorado: Map: How Much Do Colorado's School Districts Spend Per Pupil? | CPR
Denver Public Schools-largest district in Colorado-$9544per pupil
Jefferson County SD-largest Denver suburban district in CO; second largest district in CO-$8095 per pupil Note that Denver spends 15% more than Jeffco.
Douglas County SD-second largest suburban Denver district, third largest district in CO-$7431
Cherry Creek SD-third largest suburban Denver district, 4th largest in CO,wealthy district where John Elway lives-$8562
Aurora Public Schools-4th largest suburban Denver district (Adams-Arapahoe 28-J) $8085
Adams 12 Five Star (Northglenn-Thornton)-5th largest suburban Denver district, 6th in state-$7562
St. Vrain Valley-7th in state, not quite a Denver suburb-$7208
Boulder Valley-8th in state, wealthy college town district-not quite a Denver suburb-$9247 https://www.niche.com/k12/search/lar...ts/s/colorado/
Some more suburban districts:
Littleton-Denver suburb-$8653
Adams District 14-$9432
Mapleton-$7486
Westminster-$8791
I could waste a lot of time looking up the demographics of these districts. I can tell you, Denver and Aurora have the largest minority populations. Here is a graph of demographics. Colorado School District Demographics
Although Denver isn't without blemish with respect to its racial history, the scale and scope of the issues are quite different in cities that never experienced large demographic shifts in the pre-Civil Rights era (eg, destination cities during the Great Migration) or never had large Black populations from the beginning. For instance, I couldn't really imagine a similar scenario playing out in the Denver area today: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...res-light-rail
Dig down beneath the class-envy, anti-white nature of your rant, and a good point emerges: those who use the services of a city should help pay for them. However, what you overlook is that suburbanites are already helping to fund city services -- through the payment of state income taxes.
I live in the suburbs of Baltimore. Should I help pay for city schools? If so, then I should have a say in how they're run; there should be some suburban representation on the city school board. But the larger point is, I already do help pay for them, through my state income taxes. I can't speak for other states, but I know that Maryland shovels a whole lot of state funding into Baltimore. In FY 2018, the state (which, as noted, includes me) paid $12,104 per pupil in the city but less than half of that -- $5,447 -- in Howard County. My fellow county taxpayers and I fund my county's schools to the tune of $10,321 per pupil in county funding. Baltimore's equivalent local funding is $3,645.
Thus, Maryland is already doing what you advocate, by using state funding to level out the per-pupil funding across all of the state. So kindly don't tell me that I'm not paying my "fair share" for Baltimore's schools, because I already am, and then some.
My state taxes also pay for police protection, road maintenance, etc., via the state's aid to Baltimore. (And may I say, I'm getting no return for my investment; the condition of Baltimore's roads is atrocious.) As for our airport, it is owned and operated by the state, not the city. So I'm already paying for that, too.
It is true that Baltimore does contain some regionally significant cultural amenities. But I help pay for them every time I visit them and spend my money on admission fees, parking, food, etc. Would it be better for Baltimore if I kept my white, suburban self (and my green dollars) out of the city altogether? Would I be less "pillaging" and "colonizing" if I stayed away?
1. Baltimore City residents pay state income taxes too.
2. Baltimore City / Baltimore County merger would be a terrible idea. And I say that as a city resident. All the smart counties, like Howard, understand that the future is urban. Why would one of the most urban cities in America want to merge with a county that appears destined for a prolonged period of decline?
3. Baltimore City gets extra state funding for roads because it is the only local jurisdiction in Maryland responsible for maintaining state roads and an interstate highway (83).
4. BWI airport was originally built by Baltimore City so on behalf of the citizens of Baltimore, you're welcome.
1. Baltimore City residents pay state income taxes too.
2. Baltimore City / Baltimore County merger would be a terrible idea. And I say that as a city resident. All the smart counties, like Howard, understand that the future is urban. Why would one of the most urban cities in America want to merge with a county that appears destined for a prolonged period of decline?
3. Baltimore City gets extra state funding for roads because it is the only local jurisdiction in Maryland responsible for maintaining state roads and an interstate highway (83).
4. BWI airport was originally built by Baltimore City so on behalf of the citizens of Baltimore, you're welcome.
Thanks for that. Idk enough about the individual details of the Baltimore region. But your explanation on Howard County, infrastructure maintenance, and airport supports what I'm saying. Maybe not entirely as strongly-worded or as in depth, but at least to some extent haha
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.
