[missionhill]

Annexation may be the wrong word as it sounds like, and often is, a hostile takeover. As the Canadian examples show, merging separate municipalities into one may be rational and prudent, even a no-brainer. But I’m guessing the political context is different there; not as much fear and loathing of the city. There isn’t quite the same atmosphere of prioritizing class and race privilege in the guise of “local control, “home rule,” and “New England tradition.” Maybe a metropolitan federation? Hartford has its metropolitan district commission for water & sewer rather than making each municipality manage its own. Boston the same and Boston also has metropolitan parks, now folded into the state park system, and metropolitan public transporation. How about police, fire? Wouldn’t it be efficient to have a single department for the metro area rather than 40 or 50 separate ones? Schools, though— that’s too hot a potato for annexation or metro governance or anything else to get very far. Schools integrated across class and race lines with resources evenly allocated, good outcomes for students across the board— that’s a pipe dream.

I guess what prompts the annexation idea isn’t so much a vision of equitable public education as of revitalized cities. Would annexation or municipal consolidation make it easier for Hartford to recover from blight, rejuvenate its neighborhoods, change the economic logic so that vacant lots and parking lots become a rarity, generate the will to bury at least one of those dreadful highways, make public transit work for everyone? In his masterful history of urban redevelopment efforts in New Haven, Douglas Rae never once mentions annexation as desirable or cites narrow municipal boundaries as a barrier. Maybe only because annexation never seemed politically possible but to not even mention it makes me think this great student of local governance in Connecticut didn’t see it as necessary to revitalizing the city.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by missionhill

Annexation may be the wrong word as it sounds like, and often is, a hostile takeover. As the Canadian examples show, merging separate municipalities into one may be rational and prudent, even a no-brainer. But I’m guessing the political context is different there; not as much fear and loathing of the city. There isn’t quite the same atmosphere of prioritizing class and race privilege in the guise of “local control, “home rule,” and “New England tradition.” Maybe a metropolitan federation? Hartford has its metropolitan district commission for water & sewer rather than making each municipality manage its own. Boston the same and Boston also has metropolitan parks, now folded into the state park system, and metropolitan public transporation. How about police, fire? Wouldn’t it be efficient to have a single department for the metro area rather than 40 or 50 separate ones? Schools, though— that’s too hot a potato for annexation or metro governance or anything else to get very far. Schools integrated across class and race lines with resources evenly allocated, good outcomes for students across the board— that’s a pipe dream.

I guess what prompts the annexation idea isn’t so much a vision of equitable public education as of revitalized cities. Would annexation or municipal consolidation make it easier for Hartford to recover from blight, rejuvenate its neighborhoods, change the economic logic so that vacant lots and parking lots become a rarity, generate the will to bury at least one of those dreadful highways, make public transit work for everyone? In his masterful history of urban redevelopment efforts in New Haven, Douglas Rae never once mentions annexation as desirable or cites narrow municipal boundaries as a barrier. Maybe only because annexation never seemed politically possible but to not even mention it makes me think this great student of local governance in Connecticut didn’t see it as necessary to revitalizing the city.

Playing the fear, loathing and racist card. Bravo. Many of the ring suburbs are rather diverse - but a common thread of education and family. It’s hard to support our cities - so full of corruption and waste, being handed the purse strings and decision making. Also why stop at the city level, wouldn’t efficiencies continue to compound by resorting to a single police, fire and school district for the state (or even the country)? Canada needs to stop being cited - the metro areas that grew weren’t on the verge of bankruptcy, losing residents or had badly performing schools.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Playing the fear, loathing and racist card. Bravo. Many of the ring suburbs are rather diverse - but a common thread of education and family. It’s hard to support our cities - so full of corruption and waste, being handed the purse strings and decision making. Also why stop at the city level, wouldn’t efficiencies continue to compound by resorting to a single police, fire and school district for the state (or even the country)? Canada needs to stop being cited - the metro areas that grew weren’t on the verge of bankruptcy, losing residents or had badly performing schools.

Canada didn’t have white flight. The middle and upper middle class have always lived in Canadian cities. Immigration is largely Asian with the big educational and family ethic.

[Peter1948]

Originally Posted by robr2

I believe that other than Toronto, all the other annexations were of unincorporated areas with little development or population. IMHO, that's more palatable than other formal municipalities giving up control to solve the problems of a larger one.

Not true for Louisville. It annexed close to a half a million people. It's now one of the largest cities in the USA and growing because of it. Construction everywhere with one of the hottest hotel and apartment markets in the US. Hartford has to do this if it wants any chance in the 21st century.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

Not true for Louisville. It annexed close to a half a million people. It's now one of the largest cities in the USA and growing because of it. Construction everywhere with one of the hottest hotel and apartment markets in the US. Hartford has to do this if it wants any chance in the 21st century.

I’ll just leave this here. Salaries have barely moved since the county and city merged (this wasn’t an annex either).

https://www.wdrb.com/news/years-afte...c3beb0042.html

[synchem]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

How does investment solve the 70% of children in single parent households problem in failed cities that perpetuates generational poverty? If you double spending, you might salvage a small fraction of those children. Personally, I don’t see this as a spending problem. It’s that society tolerates people making the poor life choices. Very few people escape being born in the bottom quintile. How do you fix poor parenting? 48 week school year and 10 hour school day so the state is the surrogate parent?

Investment in planned parenthood, sex education, and free contraception would specifically go a long way to reducing single parent households in cities. It won't cure generational poverty overnight but it would be a great step in the right direction to minimizing it's impact in the future.