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.
Smaller government, Smaller government, smaller government.
And a unified county process so that businesses that operate in both entities (nearly all) do not have to report all of their paperwork twice through two different workflows.
Also, it complete eliminates the city income tax, which is a plus for people who live or work in the city, but a major loss of revenue for the city.
The county gains a huge hunk of government revenue, as all of the city property would now fall under the county property tax.
Smaller gov't? A merger would create a larger government.
As for the promised efficiencies, businesses don't vote (except with their feet) and have already adjusted to doing business on both sides of the city/county line. I'd bet the additional workflow is handled pretty efficiently already.
The loss of city income tax would have to be made up somewhere unless services to the (former) city were cut. That would not be possible given the merged entity would have to abide by existing civil service contracts.
Smaller gov't? A merger would create a larger government.
As for the promised efficiencies, businesses don't vote (except with their feet) and have already adjusted to doing business on both sides of the city/county line. I'd bet the additional workflow is handled pretty efficiently already.
The loss of city income tax would have to be made up somewhere unless services to the (former) city were cut. That would not be possible given the merged entity would have to abide by existing civil service contracts.
Still not seeing the logic to vote "Yes!" here...
As I stated early on in this thread
Duplicate services would be eliminated reducing the overall tax burden - ergo slightly larger county government with more overall revenue, ergo fewer municipal government services in the city -
basically the county would be getting all the revenue from the city for departments that would be eliminated - Sheriff, Prosecutor, Assessor, shared police crime labs, helicopters other services, there are probably a half dozen departments that would disappear. The increase in revenue from the city would more than cover the additional staff at county - you are just adding staff - not floating an entire department like is now the case.
The county has civil service contracts, since this is not going to happen over night my guess is that attrition could cull most of the problems - I am betting that the existing contracts have little to say about department elimination
You now have the logic - vote yes
Lots of young start up businesses actually prefer the city over the county for various
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm in New York and I don't know much about St Louis or the area, but all the arguments for a city-county merger are exactly the same ones used to push a city-county merger between Buffalo and its county, Erie, about 8 or 9 years ago.
It was pushed primarily by cabal of serving pols on the county level and their wealthy backers posing as economic development experts who wanted to get control of the city's patronage and who wanted to derail the inevitable election of an African American mayor. That's a pretty jaundiced view of the situation in Buffalo, but Buffalo's biggest impediment to moving forward is its political culture which is reminiscent of a banana republic rather than an American municipality. Buffalo and Erie County politicians feather their own nests first, then the nests of their friends and families, and everybody can go to Hades.
This may not be the case in other areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn10am
That's correct, but one of the purposes of the city-county merger is also to merge governments, wherein each municipality retains some of its responsibilities but they're all governed by a larger, city-county government. This is similar to Indianapolis' Unigov. (Don't quote me on this, though--it's just what I'm hearing from the OneSTL people). If that's the case, then they could definitely merge the police departments.
Think about this: local residents give up control of their own governments but get to keep all their responsibilities. Is this sensible? This is what was proposed for Buffalo, too. Legislators representing outlying areas of the county (and some areas of Erie County have more cows than people) would be making decisions on the services and their levels that people in the city of Buffalo would get -- and pay for.
Governments do not necessarily need to merge for police or other area-wide services to be consolidated. The city I live in (Jamestown) and the county (Chautauqua) are working on merging the city police and the county sheriff's department. Once that's in place, the other municipalities in county will undoubtedly merge into a county police force as getting the first merger is the hardest.
My city also has regional municipal power, water, and sewer which covers the city proper and contiguous "suburban" areas (some of which looks pretty rural!). Even the Jamestown school district extends beyond the city limits as NYS law allows school districts to cross municipal and even county boundaries. Consequently, there's really little need for citizens to give up local control of their cities, villages or towns because the savings are modest if they exist at all. Keep in mind that areas with public water, sewers, sidewalks, and street lights are still going to have to pay for those, so they might as well have a say in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran
That is the bottom line question. It is very hard to see benefits for any group. I think that if the county and city merged some services, there might be some efficiencies gained and possibly costs cut. Right now there is a dual system for water and sewer. There are multiple police departments. Multiple haulers of trash. Two health departments. Combined should be more efficient, although I could not guarantee this.
Countians think that the city is corrupt. I have no idea what city dwellers think about the county. But the fates of the two political entities are tied together. They should be able to work together.
See my statement above. The jobs still have to be done and services provided. Contrary to the claims of merger proponents, if the city health department serves the city residents and the county health department serves the county residents, it's not "duplication of services" since nobody is getting assistance from both. In my county, there's only a county health department.
I think you are confusing the type of merger being talked about. St Louis City is, functionally, its own county. Basically it is Buffalo-Erie after their merger.
What would happen is that the City-County of St Louis would be unmerged and the "county" of the City of St Louis dissolved and merged back into St Louis County. St Louis City would remain an independently governed city with its own government, just not a county government. It would become the 91st city in St Louis County.
Really what is being talked about is merging two counties together and has nothing to do with the city of St Louis.
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm in New York and I don't know much about St Louis or the area, but all the arguments for a city-county merger are exactly the same ones used to push a city-county merger between Buffalo and its county, Erie, about 8 or 9 years ago.
It was pushed primarily by cabal of serving pols on the county level and their wealthy backers posing as economic development experts who wanted to get control of the city's patronage and who wanted to derail the inevitable election of an African American mayor. That's a pretty jaundiced view of the situation in Buffalo, but Buffalo's biggest impediment to moving forward is its political culture which is reminiscent of a banana republic rather than an American municipality. Buffalo and Erie County politicians feather their own nests first, then the nests of their friends and families, and everybody can go to Hades.
This may not be the case in other areas.
Think about this: local residents give up control of their own governments but get to keep all their responsibilities. Is this sensible? This is what was proposed for Buffalo, too. Legislators representing outlying areas of the county (and some areas of Erie County have more cows than people) would be making decisions on the services and their levels that people in the city of Buffalo would get -- and pay for.
Governments do not necessarily need to merge for police or other area-wide services to be consolidated. The city I live in (Jamestown) and the county (Chautauqua) are working on merging the city police and the county sheriff's department. Once that's in place, the other municipalities in county will undoubtedly merge into a county police force as getting the first merger is the hardest.
My city also has regional municipal power, water, and sewer which covers the city proper and contiguous "suburban" areas (some of which looks pretty rural!). Even the Jamestown school district extends beyond the city limits as NYS law allows school districts to cross municipal and even county boundaries. Consequently, there's really little need for citizens to give up local control of their cities, villages or towns because the savings are modest if they exist at all. Keep in mind that areas with public water, sewers, sidewalks, and street lights are still going to have to pay for those, so they might as well have a say in them.
See my statement above. The jobs still have to be done and services provided. Contrary to the claims of merger proponents, if the city health department serves the city residents and the county health department serves the county residents, it's not "duplication of services" since nobody is getting assistance from both. In my county, there's only a county health department.
St. Louis city is its own county - therefore it has all the same county offices as St. Louis county - different animal from what you experienced
I'd say that if any part of our metro area has the grimmest future it's the County. The population has been stagnant for 30 years, land values are dropping, and vast swaths of North County are just as ghetto as North City. It seems like a lot of people are either moving back into the City or out to St. Charles County. That's why I think these talks of merger will be more successful than those in the past. The County isn't what it used to be and isn't in as much of a position to resist.
You are painting with the same broad brush you accuse county residents of using with the city. The county is still the economic engine driving the area.
You are painting with the same broad brush you accuse county residents of using with the city. The county is still the economic engine driving the area.
Really? I singled out North County as the main problem area. How is that painting with a broad brush?
Personally I'm not a big fan of the municipality system that exists in St. Louis County as it is. It just seems to result in one speed trap after another.
So we're not talking dissolution of the City gov't, but that of its county functions. Mkay...
1. Will a county resident's taxes go up?
2. Will a city resident's taxes go up?
I don't buy the arguments of cost savings through merging of departments between city-county. In the private sector mergers always result in job cuts, not so in the public sector.
Personally I'm not a big fan of the municipality system that exists in St. Louis County as it is. It just seems to result in one speed trap after another.
So we're not talking dissolution of the City gov't, but that of its county functions. Mkay...
1. Will a county resident's taxes go up?
2. Will a city resident's taxes go up?
I don't buy the arguments of cost savings through merging of departments between city-county. In the private sector mergers always result in job cuts, not so in the public sector.
Well, it's not actually a merger in that sense. It is more like a closure. The county functions of city government will simply cease to exist.
City resident taxes would definitely go down because of the end of the income tax. The question is whether or not city services would be cut too.
County resident taxes would probably stay exactly where they are. They have not increased in over 25 years (actually been cut 3-4 times in that span) and the increased tax base would more than cover what little expansion would be needed to cover the city. The main issue there is that county government is already behind in many of the services they deliver because of their lengthy hiring freeze and wage freeze. Bringing the city into the county would likely mean that county employees continue to stay under a wage and hiring freeze for the foreseeable future.
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.
