Why is area municipal fragmentation so hard to solve? (Pittsburgh: income, taxes)

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Getting the argument back on track for a second...

The problem with selective mergers of services is while they decrease head count, they actually create a new local government. A municipality could share a school district with 5 others, share police coverage with two others, share fire with two from group A and one from group B, etc.

Even if the mergers of services pretty much align, it's not as if one new elected representative is being put in place to oversee all of the joint services together.

All or nothing, I'd say. But hell, if it were up to me, school districts would be eliminated, and we'd have locally-controlled, state-funded charters (but staffed by state employees). Thus we'd get rid of most of the reasons for local property taxes entirely.

And then you'd have State property taxes. Or a sales tax or income tax so high as to be crippling.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

And then you'd have State property taxes. Or a sales tax or income tax so high as to be crippling.

Eh...here's how I'd set up the system:

• Education largely funded by a new state income tax. Local property taxes are essentially eliminated.
• Districts being geographically defined eliminated. Districts turn into non-profits, which must be run by Boards of Education, with only the parents of current students able to vote or serve.
• Non-profit school districts can create any curriculum they want, as long as it meets state standards and constitutional muster (e.g., not religious). They can have selective admissions if they so desire at the higher levels.
• Most school funding would come from a per-student reimbursement from the State. Special education students would get a higher reimbursement, with perhaps smaller incentives added for other troubled students. There would also be adjustments for cost of living in different counties. Schools could offer extra services for a small annual fee to parents, but these couldn't total more than 10% of the state per-student reimbursement.
• Teachers, paraprofessionals, and other school employees are certified by the state. They are not directly employed by the schools, but the state, which through collective bargaining with a single unit sets standard wage rates, provides health care, and pension access. It's up to the schools who they want to place in a position however. The beauty of this system is it would allow teachers to carry over seniority from one school to another, allowing a lot more job mobility.
• High-stakes standardized testing is eliminated. Tests can be used to benchmark a school, but shouldn't have any repercussions on the schools themselves, as they may say more about the school demographics than the performance of the teachers themselves.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Eh...here's how I'd set up the system:

• Education largely funded by a new state income tax. Local property taxes are essentially eliminated.
• Districts being geographically defined eliminated. Districts turn into non-profits, which must be run by Boards of Education, with only the parents of current students able to vote or serve.
• Non-profit school districts can create any curriculum they want, as long as it meets state standards and constitutional muster (e.g., not religious). They can have selective admissions if they so desire at the higher levels.
• Most school funding would come from a per-student reimbursement from the State. Special education students would get a higher reimbursement, with perhaps smaller incentives added for other troubled students. There would also be adjustments for cost of living in different counties. Schools could offer extra services for a small annual fee to parents, but these couldn't total more than 10% of the state per-student reimbursement.
• Teachers, paraprofessionals, and other school employees are certified by the state. They are not directly employed by the schools, but the state, which through collective bargaining with a single unit sets standard wage rates, provides health care, and pension access. It's up to the schools who they want to place in a position however. The beauty of this system is it would allow teachers to carry over seniority from one school to another, allowing a lot more job mobility.
• High-stakes standardized testing is eliminated. Tests can be used to benchmark a school, but shouldn't have any repercussions on the schools themselves, as they may say more about the school demographics than the performance of the teachers themselves.

Which boros/townships would you merge together??

[PGHproud]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I actually think a PGH-Wilkinsburg merger could be win-win (and in fact individual deals along those lines have already been struck).

BrianTH, are you able to share more information or elaborate on your comment, "in fact individual deals along those lines have already been struck."

I am in agreement with you this is a win-win, but not only Wilkinsburg and Pittsburgh City Schools, but all surrounding municipalities. This would be very exciting news.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by PGHproud

This would be very exciting news.

It would be, if it were real. The reference above was to a now-accomplished merger of Wilkinsburg's fire dept with the City of Pgh's bureau. Vague discussion regarding a similar police merger has led nowhere and that door has now firmly been closed. No other proposal is under serious consideration by either Wilkinsburg Borough or School District. Nothing is happening, nothing to see here, move along.

[PGHproud]

I appreciate the clarification.....
That's too bad... It would have made a very positive difference in many peoples lives.

[gg]

How would it be a win for Pittsburgh? To take on more poverty? I don't get how this would be advantageous to the city. Please explain.

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009:
Wilkinsburg: 28.7%
Whole state: 16.4%

[pman]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

How would it be a win for Pittsburgh? To take on more poverty? I don't get how this would be advantageous to the city. Please explain.

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009:
Wilkinsburg: 28.7%
Whole state: 16.4%

what about millvale?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

How would it be a win for Pittsburgh? To take on more poverty? I don't get how this would be advantageous to the city. Please explain.

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009:
Wilkinsburg: 28.7%
Whole state: 16.4%

It would be a nominal cost to Pittsburgh, although some neighborhoods (particularly west of the Busway) would be a big gain.

I think the point is mostly longer-term however. With the movement of Wilkinsburg into Pittsburgh (or at least the merger of the school districts) Wilkinsburg taxes would fall dramatically. This would make the stable/improving parts much more desirable, leading to a dramatic rise in property values, and eventually a rise in assessed prices. It might also lead to a comeback of the Wilkinsburg business district, provided Pittsburgh does a better job with the crime issues than the borough has.

I have been on the record as saying I think some deal with Bellvue/Avalon or Brentwood would probably make the most financial sense though, in that they would be real win-wins, as borough taxes would drop, and they are slightly wealthier than the average city resident.

[gg]

Millvale isn't much better.

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009:
Millvale: 23.3%
Whole state: 16.4%