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.
The above examples are specific to places like central Phoenix & Tempe. Light rail has a much greater benefit (and higher demand) in the urban areas than it does in the suburbs, and especially those in the outlying or rural areas. The rancher in rural Maricopa County is so far removed from the city, and highly likely would have no use for light rail, but he's still paying taxes for it because he resides in the same county as Phoenix. Makes no sense. He would be better served by being in a separate county with officials representing what his needs are (and the needs of many other people like him who have little use for city projects).
The farmer who needs a certain level of precipitation to help support their crops doesn't benefit from reduced urban heat island (improving rain conditions) and improved air quality? The farmer themselves doesn't benefit from cleaner air for them to breathe?
Quote:
At the same time, having a condensed county representing Phoenix and/or Tempe would work much better at creating the better mass transit & higher density that you favor. Scottsdale rejected light rail, as did Glendale. This proves that being in the same county doesn't do much of anything to encourage mass transit improvements, or infrastructure projects in general. Many suburbs prefer to do their own thing.
Out east? Harris County, TX is just 1,000 square miles, and the Houston metro area encompasses NINE counties. Dallas County, TX is less than 1,000 square miles, and the Dallas/Fort Worth region makes up 11 counties. Denver is a consolidated city & county, and their metro area comprises 10 counties. California has a few of the largest land mass counties in the nation, but the Bay area is made up of 9 fairly small sized counties.
Phoenix and Tempe is already able to cooperate on their transit projects through the utilization of MAG (which would go away if the County is broken up since they're approved quality standards set by the municipalities and enforced by the County).
Denver and SF and NYC as others mentioned are city-county consolidated governments. They did the *opposite* of what you are implying, which is county consolidation. This is the result of counties being too small and going past them. Some other cities like Atlanta experienced county consolidation beyond city limits (Fulton County). Why do you continue to propose an approach that other successful metros are doing the opposite of? Those cities also do not benefit from not having a metropolitan level of quality standards to facilitate infrastructure, like Valley Metro (used by all cities in the Phoenix Metro) and MAG like we do. Many cities have a complete break up of transit and infrastructure agencies resulting in an increase in bureaucracy and belittling political nonsense between agencies. A good example is DC, there is WMATA which is cool, but outside of the subway try looking at DC's bus network. It is a discombobulated mess between suburbs and unincorporated areas. This is why Phoenix, not known for being a transit-oriented city, still has some of the best transit coverage across the entire metro in the US ranked so by people who work in transit for a living even though it's utility is lower than other cities. It is relatively easy for one to be in say, Litchfield and get over to Mesa than to cover that level of distance anywhere else, due to the consolidation of transit under Valley Metro versus 5 or so different county and city transit departments. There are a minimal amount of transfers compared to this done in the DC area, since lines will just continuously go through multiple municipalities rather than end at specific government boundaries and force a transfer to not cross county or city lines.
We currently have this set up:
- United States: National
- Arizona: Regional
- Maricopa County: Metropolitan
- City: Local
And I think this is the best way to break up our model of government system, it is the most efficient, and I think every other municipality would benefit from consolidating their counties to reflect their MSA/CSAs to the best of their ability (if they cross state lines that's different) to benefit everyone in the region who often depends on the central city economically and for certain amenities (e.g. the airport). The airport is something that is supported by taxes, and I think should be supported regionally at the county level over exclusively the city level. I am a Phoenix resident, I pay for Sky Harbor, yet Scottsdale does not and their residents use Sky Harbor all the time. I don't think that's fair honestly. But if it was funded via County tax, I'd be much happier.
This model is why I support a breakup of our municipalities. The state law that has allowed Phoenix to act like a virus and annex entire communities whole due to weird city approval laws was a horrible mistake. If municipalities are the lowest most local form of government then they need to be treated that way. Anthem and Phoenix should not be in the same smallest level of government, they do not share the same values and Anthem holds Phoenix back. It'd also reduce sprawl because the smaller suburbs would not want to pay for their own water systems which is why many (including recently New River) try to continuously leech off of the City of Phoenix without paying their fair share (taxes to support water infrastructure). They'd actually have to pay for their services without being subsidized by the heavily taxed and income earning areas for the city like DT Phoenix, Biltmore, Midtown, etc. Meanwhile these higher earning areas can better support their local areas without having to support Anthem, and can work on greenifying, building bike lanes, etc.
Quote:
Now, in contrast, Maricopa is the LARGEST "urban" county in the nation in terms of land area. There is no legitimate reason why it has to be over 9,000 square miles, much of it empty desert. Even Los Angeles & San Diego counties (fairly large land masses) pale in comparison to the size of Maricopa County.
Phoenix isn't Houston or Dallas. Or LA. Or San Diego. Nor should it be. Then it wouldn't be Phoenix.
Point being that Maricopa County doesn't need to be the size that it is. Many rural counties in the western U.S. contain large land masses because there are few towns which could qualify as county seats in most cases. When something is too large, the obvious solution is to divide it and reduce the size ... much like telephone area codes were split in the '90s & 2000s (and still are to a certain extent) when they came close to reaching their capacity. Congressional & Legislative districts are realigned after every Census due to population changes. You don't keep things exactly the same in a fast growing, highly populated area unless you want an enormous bureaucracy & the problems that go along with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlurryCat
Should read: "I want to see a small blue county surrounded by a sea of red, but need to make it not blatantly look like politics and justify the separation based on practical matters."
Although in fairness to VN, with him it's only partly politics. There's also the "World Class City" fixation topped off with a hearty dollop of Metro Envy. And if we can't lure all the "right kind of people" here, then let's take the few we do have, gather them together, and keep the others out.
There's no question that these Legislators are wanting the county to be divided based on politics ... however, the reasons I've given aren't political at all, not even partly. I don't side with either of the two corrupt political parties. As to my "fixation" with world class cities & attracting the "right kind of people": I fail to see what's so wrong with trying to attract a higher caliber with more ambition & intelligence. Sure would be a nice change of pace from the typical "sunnier & cheaper" reasons for moving here, which is getting pretty old & outdated.
The farmer who needs a certain level of precipitation to help support their crops doesn't benefit from reduced urban heat island (improving rain conditions) and improved air quality? The farmer themselves doesn't benefit from cleaner air for them to breathe?
The farmer who lives in a rural area doesn't experience the UHI, nor the level of pollution that those of us in the city do. Precipitation (or the lack thereof) is a climate/weather issue, and is affecting everybody. Unfortunately, there's not a viable solution, especially with this pesky La Niña in full control right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
Phoenix and Tempe is already able to cooperate on their transit projects through the utilization of MAG (which would go away if the County is broken up since they're approved quality standards set by the municipalities and enforced by the County).
MAG is a joke. The concept of MAG is fine, but there have been quite a few situations where essential things fell through the cracks under their supervision. It was MAG and ADOT which mismanaged the Prop 300 sales tax revenue that was supposed to fund 231 miles of freeways between 1985 and 2008. Only a portion of the 231 miles was completed from the original tax revenue, prior to being extended in 2004 (Prop 400). And what happened to the additional freeways approved by voters in 2004? Two of them were revised from the original plans, and two more still have yet to move forward, nearly 20 years after approval. Oh, and what about the wonderful rubberized asphalt which was a multi million dollar boondoggle?
ADOT & MAG have been careless about other things, such as flood control. Remember the big flood on I10 in 2014 that left commuters stranded & their vehicles inundated because the pumps weren't working? I17 is flooded at certain underpasses every time we get a heavy rain. It's all due to neglect & lack of maintenance. The whole point is that keeping Maricopa County at a land area larger than some states isn't doing anything other than creating an overload of big government, which often results in an overload of waste & neglect (as has been the case with ADOT & MAG).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
We currently have this set up:
- United States: National
- Arizona: Regional
- Maricopa County: Metropolitan
- City: Local
And I think this is the best way to break up our model of government system
This is the system we currently have (with some exceptions). You stated that Maricopa County is "metropolitan", but I don't consider places like Aguila, Gila Bend, or Wickenburg to be part of the Phoenix metropolitan area. They're completely different on a number of things, and I'm pretty sure the few people who live in those towns want to be separate from Phoenix as much as possible. They couldn't care less about light rail or other urban infrastructure projects ... just as we city dwellers don't care about livestock auctions or grazing leases.
Last edited by Valley Native; 02-12-2022 at 11:11 PM..
New managerial and infranstructure overhead for zoning, flood control districts, health departments, highway, county hospitals, court systems, jails - the opportunities to fleece the public to pay more for what we already have seem endless!
So, more money for cronies. More cushy government jobs staffed by cronies.
New managerial and infranstructure overhead for zoning, flood control districts, health departments, highway, county hospitals, court systems, jails - the opportunities to fleece the public to pay more for what we already have seem endless!
And here I thought Republicans were for less government not more? go figure.
With inflation through the roof, a housing crises, a raging pandemic this is what these people occupy their time with?
And here I thought Republicans were for less government not more? go figure.
With inflation through the roof, a housing crises, a raging pandemic this is what these people occupy their time with?
The general belief of the party is SMALLER government. Splitting the county would create more government bodies, but they would be condensed and much smaller in nature ... thus, eliminating the huge government bureaucracy that Maricopa County currently is. I'm not a Republican, and I don't particularly like the way the bill is written (nor do I agree with their underhanded political reasons), but the county does need to be divided due to the substantial population, and it covers too large of an area. It would be different if it was a rural county with only a few thousand souls.
A lot of counties in AZ are overly sized IMO, Yavapai county needs to be split up also. Black Canyon City, Sedona and Village of Oak Creek have nothing in common with Prescott or Prescott Valley.
The general belief of the party is SMALLER government. Splitting the county would create more government bodies, but they would be condensed and much smaller in nature ... thus, eliminating the huge government bureaucracy that Maricopa County currently is. I'm not a Republican, and I don't particularly like the way the bill is written (nor do I agree with their underhanded political reasons), but the county does need to be divided due to the substantial population, and it covers too large of an area. It would be different if it was a rural county with only a few thousand souls.
The United States is too big, it needs to be split up! It has both urban and rural areas, it simply doesn’t work!
A lot of counties in AZ are overly sized IMO, Yavapai county needs to be split up also. Black Canyon City, Sedona and Village of Oak Creek have nothing in common with Prescott or Prescott Valley.
I tend to agree, and Gila County should also be divided into two different counties. People who live in Payson have to drive all the way to Globe if they need to conduct any kind of business with the court system. Payson is larger than Globe anyway, so it should be a county seat. It really doesn't make sense why dividing counties is so heavily opposed when other things like Legislative & Congressional districts are split and realigned every 10 years or so. Area code boundaries are split every so often, based largely on population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball86
Let the voters decide put it on a ballot. Or it just smells of Parisian politics.
I wouldn't have any problem with this. The voters should be deciding most of these matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
The United States is too big, it needs to be split up! It has both urban and rural areas, it simply doesn’t work!
Which is why the U.S. already is split up ... into STATES!
()
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.
)
