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.
There is one town in my area that is struggling. They plan on building a beach lodge and conference center this year, but I don't know if that will cut it to break financial woes. Lack of road repair, fire services (and almost police services) are used from another town and even the chamber of commerce consolidated with another town. To me, I just don't see why when offered a chance to consolidate, is turned down. I mean the name of the town really doesn't boast well to people. Is it really worth to have individual government over lower taxes and more services?
Saw this a lot when I lived in Pennsylvania for a couple of years. There was one stretch of road where in under 10 miles there were 4 different municipalities. Each had a mayor, chief of police, fire chief and other assorted underlings all making $50,000 to $90,000 ( this was almost 20 years ago). A study proposed combining the towns or at least combining the public services to reduce costs. The outcry against it was pretty amazing, each town did not want to lose any identity. Most of these towns had been around since the Revolutionary War and whatever subtle differences an outsider like myself could not see was enough to kill the idea pretty quickly.
It was too bad, from what I remember from the study it was possible to save almost a million dollars a year in just salaries & benefits by merging the public services. Each town only had 10-15,000 residents so it made sense on paper. Plus the local population was graying rather rapidly, so the bulk of the property taxes were falling on retired people.
Beyond the "loss of identity"-- there are obvious conflicts...
Typically the "consultants" hired to "evaluate" these consolidations will recommend that a "local commission" verify the consolidation and inevitably there are retired police chiefs, city managers and others with either direct ties to some of the folks that would be let go or at least have retirement income that sorta does depend on more working municipal employers...
Often a court has to get involved in cases where the only alternative is bankruptcy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmi66
Saw this a lot when I lived in Pennsylvania for a couple of years. There was one stretch of road where in under 10 miles there were 4 different municipalities. Each had a mayor, chief of police, fire chief and other assorted underlings all making $50,000 to $90,000 ( this was almost 20 years ago). A study proposed combining the towns or at least combining the public services to reduce costs. The outcry against it was pretty amazing, each town did not want to lose any identity. Most of these towns had been around since the Revolutionary War and whatever subtle differences an outsider like myself could not see was enough to kill the idea pretty quickly.
It was too bad, from what I remember from the study it was possible to save almost a million dollars a year in just salaries & benefits by merging the public services. Each town only had 10-15,000 residents so it made sense on paper. Plus the local population was graying rather rapidly, so the bulk of the property taxes were falling on retired people.
Tradition combined with ego and NIMBYism is a recipe for stasis.
One town inevitably will be wealthier and won't want to "subsidize" people in a neighboring town. Residents are particularly protective of school districts.
Typically the "consultants" hired to "evaluate" these consolidations will recommend that a "local commission" verify the consolidation and inevitably there are retired police chiefs, city managers and others with either direct ties to some of the folks that would be let go or at least have retirement income that sorta does depend on more working municipal employers...
Often a court has to get involved in cases where the only alternative is bankruptcy...
There is one town in my area that is struggling. They plan on building a beach lodge and conference center this year, but I don't know if that will cut it to break financial woes. Lack of road repair, fire services (and almost police services) are used from another town and even the chamber of commerce consolidated with another town. To me, I just don't see why when offered a chance to consolidate, is turned down. I mean the name of the town really doesn't boast well to people. Is it really worth to have individual government over lower taxes and more services?
Legal and procedural issues aside, what makes you think that the other town would want to take on the problems of the town that is struggling?
Political pride is a big reason. So is the continual border battles over commercial development. Yes, it would avoid the ridiculous crossing from one town to another, then back into the first, then the second, all within a few miles.
The other town that could would because it would want the revenue generated from the little tourism in that town and also it would give reasons not to expand out in the current town, but push to get housing developments in the consolidated town through. The biggest problem the other town has is that there is no draw with the name and bad city management. If the other town had the nicer town's name attached and better city management it would be nicer. More people want to move to a place with a name than a no name town beach town.
The other town that could would because it would want the revenue generated from the little tourism in that town and also it would give reasons not to expand out in the current town, but push to get housing developments in the consolidated town through. The biggest problem the other town has is that there is no draw with the name and bad city management. If the other town had the nicer town's name attached and better city management it would be nicer. More people want to move to a place with a name than a no name town beach town.
That would be fiscally irresponsible and characteristic of bad city management to take on another town's liabilities, obligations, responsibilities, etc. I can't imagine the taxpayers willingly accepting the problems of a no-name neighboring town.
[nothing you've written thus far makes for a compelling argument]
While it didn't involve cities, I have seen villages dissolve within towns in order to try and minimize costs here in NY. Seneca Falls and Ticonderoga come to mind. Some towns have combined services as well. With that said, you do see a lot of push back in many cases due to identity or a feeling of comfort in people knowing a village(i.e.-law enforcement).
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.
Beyond the "loss of identity"-- there are obvious conflicts...
