Shouldn't Cincinnati and Dayton be counted as one metro area? (Hamilton: fit in, utilities)

[jmecklenborg]

No, unigovernment is a big mistake. Indiana might be different, but in Ohio the *only* significant overlap between cities and counties is law enforcement. So there is really no money to be saved, since the Sheriff's deputies are minimally active within the City of Cincinnati. What is to be lost? A ton. The type of built environment that exists within the Cincinnati city limits is unique, and Cincinnati City Council has been doing a great job catering to it (especially the streetcar). Meanwhile, Columbus has stalled repeatedly on mass transit, including streetcars, because Mayor Coleman is at the mercy of ignorant suburbanites who because of Columbus's annexation live within city limits.

[kjbrill]

I get somewhat amazed when people complain the Federal Government has become a monster eating away both the money and rights of the people, and then turn right around and claim a total county wide single government would be more efficient and save money. One is just a smaller version of the other. How would a county wide government be governed?

The closest version I am familiar with is Louisville Ky. They have a Metro Mayor and a Metro Council. The council consists of 26 members each elected from one of 26 districts the area is divided into. And we think the US Congress is ineffective in getting something done? 26 people all struggling for their district, what a power struggle. Same as with the US Congress, you back mine and I will back yours, meaning we will spend more money than we should be.

In contrast, Cincinnati has 9 council members elected at large, meaning the nine highest vote getters within the entire city. I don't think many of you remember when Cincinnati's council was elected by wards which was done away with in 1924, or Boss Cox whose corrupted administration caused the rebellion to do away with the wards.

This unigovernment idea is just a path to political corruption on a more local level.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

This unigovernment idea is just a path to political corruption on a more local level.

Consolidation of services is the biggest benefit as far as I know. It is in no way even remotely efficient to have over 20 police departments in the area, for example. And I am not a proponent of Unigov.

I think w/o unigov we have plenty of corruption on a local level.

[WILWRadio]

Personally I favor local autonomy over a larger bureaucracy taking control of every suburban government or trying to merge into a single "city" entity. However, it does make economic sense to try to get area communities to work together to help reduce costs which in turn can keep taxes in check. Consolidating some services with towns that are adjacent to one another certainly would help. I suspect local Charters that govern existing cities and towns would have to have some kind of language written in to permit such action.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

I suspect local Charters that govern existing cities and towns would have to have some kind of language written in to permit such action.

Others will have to clarify this for both of us. As a recent transplant, I've been in the Cincinnati - Dayton area for 5 years now, I am under the impression that most of these little municipalities don't really want to work together. Too many Chiefs not enough Injuns sort of situation.

And I can't say for sure that Dayton or Cincinnati cities had any interest in working outside city limits. Though, around the time I left Dayton was contracting trash removal for neighboring municipalities.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Others will have to clarify this for both of us. As a recent transplant, I've been in the Cincinnati - Dayton area for 5 years now, I am under the impression that most of these little municipalities don't really want to work together. Too many Chiefs not enough Injuns sort of situation.

And I can't say for sure that Dayton or Cincinnati cities had any interest in working outside city limits. Though, around the time I left Dayton was contracting trash removal for neighboring municipalities.

Privatizing trash removal is not a bad idea. I had private service in Maine and also in Connecticut and it worked fine. If that is not possible then it might be possible to merge two or more communities in the area to utilize one government runs service.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Privatizing trash removal is not a bad idea. I had private service in Maine and also in Connecticut and it worked fine. If that is not possible then it might be possible to merge two or more communities in the area to utilize one government runs service.

In the Greater Cincinnati area, we have one private trash collector, Rumpke, who has the lions's share of the contracts with the local suburban cities and townships. We joke their primary collection site on the west side of town is called Mount Rumpke. Yes it is a nasty business but they appear to have managed it quite well. Whenever I drive over to Indy I see their trucks on the road so apparently they have become a force in Indy also.

The City of Cincinnati operates their own trash collection service using employees of the city. The one thing I am having a problem determing is where do they take the trash? I suspect they take it to Rumpke. Years ago I remember a number of incinerators located within the City for trash disposal. But I suspect they have all been shut down for environmental reasons.

Trash collection is obviously a serious matter, as well as its disposal.

Some years ago, BFI, a large national outfit, operated a landfill dump north of me towards South Lebanon. It was right along the banks of the Little Miami Historic River. When the landfill was full, they were denied a permit to purchase additional land to enlarge it, so they shut down.

Garbage, waste, trash, whatever name you put on it is a significant problem. Cincinnati operates their own collection, but I do not believe they operate the disposal sites, which to me over time become the larger problem.

[Ohiogirl81]

Mt. Rumpke even has its own Wikipedia page, LOL.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

Mt. Rumpke even has its own Wikipedia page, LOL.

OMG - It's the highest point in Hamilton County.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpke_Sanitary_Landfill

[neilworms2]

In contrast, Cincinnati has 9 council members elected at large, meaning the nine highest vote getters within the entire city. I don't think many of you remember when Cincinnati's council was elected by wards which was done away with in 1924, or Boss Cox whose corrupted administration caused the rebellion to do away with the wards.

The advantages and disadvantages of ward politics is also something that interests me. I think one of the biggest problems of the Chartarites legacy is lack of proper neighborhood representation. The community councils aren't the best solution either as they are informal and easily corrupted - they were literally born out of concern by people in Brighton of it falling to the same fate as the rest of the West End. I think the problem with this system is that with bad community councils neighborhood needs that are strategic for the city aren't met (the council rubber stamps community council concerns even if they are bonheaded and directed by interests outside the neighborhood that have a stake in the neighborhood - see Corryville).

A good alderman does amazing things for their ward, and can be relied upon to make the ward a good place to live with plenty of business opportunities for growth, while at the same time easily making the neighborhoods interests heard and very visible on council at large; the problem is that it sets up a bossist system of patronage (Chicago is a living example of that system). In some places, I've heard from friends who have relatives as cops the alderman are paid off by criminal organizations in the neighborhoods to look the other way in return for them protecting the criminal organizations. Not a good system either.

Because of the advantages and disadvantages of both systems, I'm curious, how does one properly solve a problem neighborhood representation without devolving into systems that are inherently corrupt. as so many neighborhoods would benefit from having themselves be represented by someone on council, look at Walnut Hills I think it could be easier to fight for that areas growth (and not its continued destruction) if it had a bit more say as opposed to having an at large council that only focuses on the city as a whole and not its individual parts so much - this heavily favors development to appease downtown interests at the expense of other areas...

Any thoughts?