Consolidate the Bay?

[powellmacaque]

Originally Posted by BBI

Why would I want a "NYC setup"? That'd make Tampa into Manhattan and St. Pete into...Staten Island? Sorry, but I want my tax dollars spent where I live, work and play -- in St. Pete. The last thing I need is the majority of my "city" to be people who rarely even come to this side of the bay. St. Pete's my favorite town in the whole bay area, and, if you did that, I'd need to sell my house immediately before property values cratered.

I'd say St. Pete would be more like Brooklyn or the Bronx than Staten Island.

Why would I want any of those places to be part of St. Pete? We've got our own problems to worry about. Where do you live that you think this is a good idea?

I live in Clearwater now, lived in St. Pete last year. I'll admit that this is only my second year living in the Bay Area (lived in the Ocala area most of my life), so maybe I'm not so keen on what each area's intricacies are. Maybe it's a bit different for home owners, but as somebody who rents it creates quite a mess. Let's say I have government business to take care of in Lealman, do I go to Clearwater to take care of it? Do I call a sheriff or a local PD? For instance, I live in an area that is called Clearwater but is actually unincorporated. Who services me? Why does it have to be this confusing?


That's not true at all. Most people rarely cross the bay, and the municipalities in the bay area all compete against each other. Just look at the Rays situation, if you need an example. And don't think the mayors aren't all out trying to get other significant businesses to relocate within the area (the meetings are awkward).[/quote]

Apparently you haven't gotten on the Howard Frankland at 6-9:00am or 5-7:00pm. I see TONS of people hiking across the Bay.

But let's use the Rays example. Lets say the Rays move from St. Pete to Tampa. In your scenario, St. Pete loses that tax revenue but in mine the tax revenues stay. Instead of competing for business in various parts of the bay, we should be competing with other cities across the country and the world. I know many are opposed to it, but wouldn't something like light rail and improved mass transit services work in a unified city verses 20ish small cities and three decent sized ones? Granted, I think the Bay Area needs to become slightly more dense before any of this happens, and I'm not saying tomorrow, but what about in 30-50 years?

[powellmacaque]

How does that even correlate?

[BBI]

The big picture issue is that the larger "city" would be headquarted in and focused on Tampa, and that's where the "city" government would encourage growth and development. So you say that "we" should be focused on competing with areas outside of the bay area, but, in your plan, "we" is Tampa. That's great for Tampa, but I don't live in Tampa. And I understand that, at some level, if Tampa improves, the whole area could improve around it. But, as a homeowner in St. Pete, I'd much prefer my tax dollars be spent to improve St. Pete directly. Similarly, when you say that if the Rays moved to Tampa, the "city" would lose none of the related growth/revenue, that misses the point. People who live where I live would lose that value because the growth/revenue would all be in Tampa, not here. There's a reason the mayor of St. Pete is fighting like hell to keep the Rays here -- because that's the right thing for people who live where I live.

In that same light, thousands of people commute across the bay every day. But there are 4 million people in the bay area, most of whom hardly ever cross the bay. And the commuters commute in and out. It's not like someone living in Tampa and working in St. Pete identifies with or spends much free time in St. Pete (or vice versa). In fact, most people hate commuting across the bay, which only reinforces that business development will be in/around Tampa since most people live on that side of the bay.

To the NYC parallel, St. Pete is my favorite town in the bay area. That's why I live here. I certainly don't want it to be the Bronx of the bay area. And I get that parts of Brooklyn are trendy now, but those parts just got trendy (after how long...?) and are right across the river to Manhattan, like a mile away. We're 20 miles to Tampa. That's like Manhattan to freaking Yonkers or Scarsdale. You simply can't assume that, if there's just one "city" in the region, my tax dollars will be spent to support the place that I live. That's why Pinellas was founded in the first place -- because the regional government was spending all the tax dollars east of the bay.

I'm not sure that the fact of unincorporated parts of Pinellas county changes anything. Perhaps those should be merged away, or perhaps each continguous part should incorporate as a new city. Either way would seem to solve the confusion you experienced. Merging the whole area is not necessary to solve the issue (which, honestly, doesn't seem like a big deal to me).

I'm not a fan of the way the bay area was developed. Your end goal and mine might actually look the same. But I've made a big investment (personal, professional, financial) based on the way things are, and the path you want to take would be really painful for me.

[crazynip]

It's a solution in search of a problem. No thanks.

Look at Jacksonville / Duval county. Entire areas of the county are more or less unrepresented becuase of the the way the government got consolidated in the 60's. Rural people have to deal and pay for urban problems, and basically get little or no representation.

We dont need that here

[engineman]

Pinellas was originally part of Hillsborough. The folks in Pinellas got tired of all the tax money being spent in Tampa/Hillsborough and seceded. It was good idea then and it is a good idea now.

[jambo101]

Combining the cities like you propose would effectively render all the towns west of Tampa obsolete and in a few years no one would remember St Pete,Clearwater Etc, having spent much of my youth in St Pete i'm already a bit peeved at how readily people dismiss St Pete as Tampa as when people rave about Tampa's beautiful beaches..... eg from another topic,.=Tampa Area Beaches no longer in the top 10?,wouldnt that be St Pete area beaches?.
If this hypothetical merging is merely to eliminate duplication of municipal/county services, why not go big and include Bradenton and Sarasota,plant City and Lakeland and everything as far north as Brookesville. And why not call the whole thing St Petersburg..