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.
Nashville, Indy, Louisville and Jacksonville are the big ones I believe.
Jax happened a long time ago, late 60s I wanna say, so there's a lot of debate about exactly what the consequences and ramifications have been. It might be a different scenario for STL now that white flight is a thing of the past (at least in the sense of what it was before) and gentrification/infill has been the trend over the last decade.
I grew up in Jacksonville. Consolidation happened in 1968. Jacksonville includes all of Duval County except for the beach communities (Jacksonville/Neptune/Atlantic Beaches), which have retained their identities and city governments, and a couple of smaller cities away from the coast. Consolidation was touted as a way to save money, because the city and county would not have to duplicate services to serve urban and rural populations. Whether it has been successful is anyone's guess.
Kansas City is in 3 counties.... By the way the guy that may be partially sponsoring the bill to consolidate both St.Louis County and City is a huge repub donor so he might have some leverage in getting the state to vote yes so anything is possible however i don't see county residents voting yes on this because they feel they'll be bailing out the city for many purpose's... I look at residents in the county to be very hypocritical.. They want their cake and eat it too... Reap all the benefits the city has to offer but don't want nothing to do with the city...Pretty much are users
Im a St.Louis County resident but work in the city.. Im all for merger/consolidation the time is now...
Yep. Exactly my opinion on most places like this. Whether it's this set up with the county using the city for its benefit as in Baltimore too. Or if it's two polar opposite cities next to one another where one is far wealthier, but the government seat or economic hub, and the wealthy suburbanites use it to their benefit. Or even MSAs as a whole. Why should cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, etc. be full of neighborhoods with extreme poverty, with suburbs in their MSAs that use all of the city's resources like transit, tourism, hospitality, dining/sports/entertainment, airports, etc.?
I know in the city limits of each of those cities I listed, there are nice areas. But there is no denying their suburbs are wealthy AF, with those suburban counties/cities making up part of the MSA, and taking advantage of the jobs, connectivity, sports, airports, etc. of their host cities like parasites? They work in the cities, but don't contribute their fair share of taxes to the police forces and firefighters who keep their sports venues and office buildings safe, and their taxes are brought back to their suburban towns for better educational facilities in the suburbs, while the poor residents of the host cities have abysmal schools and a dearth of funding.
I think any government-classified MSA should be required to share its resources better. You want jobs in the city in fancy office buildings but to live in the suburbs? Pay your fair share of taxes to the schools down the block so those students have a fighting chance to compete with your suburban town's schools. You want to feel safe working in your fancy office building in the city and not get stabbed when you go to sporting events and concerts in the city before returning home to your quite safe suburb at night? Pay your fair share of taxes to ensure your own safety in the city. You want the roads in and out of the city you refer to as your home because nobody knows the name of your white suburban town to be clean and well-paved? Pay some taxes to that city instead of repaving the same 17 streets named after different types of trees and the same 12 streets named after cities your sheltered kids probably can't even point to on a map. As far as I know, the major cities own their airports and they are city property. You like flying out of airports? Help the city pay for it better.
As you can see, I have a very strong dislike for the concept of suburbs. They enshrine white supremacy every way possible. Just like colonialism, the rich white people of the suburbs use the amenities and infrastructure of where the minorities live for their own benefit, leave it to decay, and never give back to it, then complain about how it's corrupt, dangerous, and dirty. Maybe if you didn't pillage all it's resources and supported it properly because you have the money by stealing it and keeping it, the place you "colonized" or work in wouldn't be so poor off.
Ok rant over. Sorry. I just hate the concept of suburbs.
Yep. Exactly my opinion on most places like this. Whether it's this set up with the county using the city for its benefit as in Baltimore too. Or if it's two polar opposite cities next to one another where one is far wealthier, but the government seat or economic hub, and the wealthy suburbanites use it to their benefit. Or even MSAs as a whole. Why should cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, etc. be full of neighborhoods with extreme poverty, with suburbs in their MSAs that use all of the city's resources like transit, tourism, hospitality, dining/sports/entertainment, airports, etc.?
I know in the city limits of each of those cities I listed, there are nice areas. But there is no denying their suburbs are wealthy AF, with those suburban counties/cities making up part of the MSA, and taking advantage of the jobs, connectivity, sports, airports, etc. of their host cities like parasites? They work in the cities, but don't contribute their fair share of taxes to the police forces and firefighters who keep their sports venues and office buildings safe, and their taxes are brought back to their suburban towns for better educational facilities in the suburbs, while the poor residents of the host cities have abysmal schools and a dearth of funding.
I think any government-classified MSA should be required to share its resources better. You want jobs in the city in fancy office buildings but to live in the suburbs? Pay your fair share of taxes to the schools down the block so those students have a fighting chance to compete with your suburban town's schools. You want to feel safe working in your fancy office building in the city and not get stabbed when you go to sporting events and concerts in the city before returning home to your quite safe suburb at night? Pay your fair share of taxes to ensure your own safety in the city. You want the roads in and out of the city you refer to as your home because nobody knows the name of your white suburban town to be clean and well-paved? Pay some taxes to that city instead of repaving the same 17 streets named after different types of trees and the same 12 streets named after cities your sheltered kids probably can't even point to on a map. As far as I know, the major cities own their airports and they are city property. You like flying out of airports? Help the city pay for it better.
As you can see, I have a very strong dislike for the concept of suburbs. They enshrine white supremacy every way possible. Just like colonialism, the rich white people of the suburbs use the amenities and infrastructure of where the minorities live for their own benefit, leave it to decay, and never give back to it, then complain about how it's corrupt, dangerous, and dirty. Maybe if you didn't pillage all it's resources and supported it properly because you have the money by stealing it and keeping it, the place you "colonized" or work in wouldn't be so poor off.
Ok rant over. Sorry. I just hate the concept of suburbs.
MSA is a census bureau definition and changes frequently.
City schools usually have better tax bases than suburban schools, which have fewer businesses and more residences. City schools usually have higher per-pupil budgets than neighboring suburban schools as well.
I think any government-classified MSA should be required to share its resources better. You want jobs in the city in fancy office buildings but to live in the suburbs? Pay your fair share of taxes to the schools down the block so those students have a fighting chance to compete with your suburban town's schools. You want to feel safe working in your fancy office building in the city and not get stabbed when you go to sporting events and concerts in the city before returning home to your quite safe suburb at night? Pay your fair share of taxes to ensure your own safety in the city. You want the roads in and out of the city you refer to as your home because nobody knows the name of your white suburban town to be clean and well-paved? Pay some taxes to that city instead of repaving the same 17 streets named after different types of trees and the same 12 streets named after cities your sheltered kids probably can't even point to on a map. As far as I know, the major cities own their airports and they are city property. You like flying out of airports? Help the city pay for it better.
I don't want to take away from your greater rant about suburbs but had a thought per the bolded. I suppose I can't speak for all core cities in all states. Most core cities have city income taxes. If you work in the city you are still subject to pay a small portion of income tax, even if you don't live in it. Most legacy cities have some form of this. This does force some of the suburban dwellers that want the advantage of the city benefits, but shy from the negative parts of city life to contribute by default.
MSA is a census bureau definition and changes frequently.
City schools usually have better tax bases than suburban schools, which have fewer businesses and more residences. City schools usually have higher per-pupil budgets than neighboring suburban schools as well.
You have really drunk the Kool-Aide there.
Yeah I know that. So something more permanent or easier to analyze should be established to ensure that any suburban county is included in one supra-county government.
Please show me some sources that prove this, because I've heard the argument, but have never seen data backing that up.
"In many of the school districts spending the most, these proportions are drastically different. According to Griffith, New York does very little to regulate how much revenue school districts can raise locally. As a result, six of the top spending districts are in wealthy neighborhoods in Long Island and Westchester County and get an outsized share — from 73% to 93% — of revenue from local sources." https://247wallst.com/special-report...hest-spending/
^There are no poor cities on this list.
"IN MORE THAN HALF OF the states in the U.S., the poorest school districts do not receive funding to address their students' increased needs – just the latest data point to shine a spotlight on funding gaps that plague the country's public education system.
School districts with the highest rates of poverty receive about $1,000 less per student in state and local funding than those with the lowest rates of poverty, according to a new report released Tuesday by The Education Trust.
While the funding gaps among states vary significantly, Illinois, Missouri, New York and Alabama rank among the worst. In Illinois, for example, the poorest districts received 22 percent less in state and local funding than the lowest-poverty districts...
When accounting for the additional needs, the report shows that highest-poverty districts receive about $2,000, or 16 percent, less per student than low-poverty districts...
The report also looked a funding disparities between districts serving the most students of color and those serving the least, finding an even larger funding disparity than that of poverty levels. On average, districts serving the most students of color received about $1,800 per student, or 16 percent." https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...t-less-funding
"In 2012-13, the typical wealthy Pennsylvania school district had about $3,058 more per student than a typical poor district, according to Mark Price, a labor economist at the liberal Keystone Research Center.
By 2016-17, that gap was $3,778, according to Price.
In Philadelphia, for instance, the School District spent $9,062 per student in 2016-17, excluding construction costs. The typical wealthy district, meanwhile, spent $15,748, according to Price's analysis, which looked at the 100 wealthiest districts and used enrollment figures that accounted for differing levels of need among students.
"School districts that serve large populations of students of color and students from low-income families receive far less funding than those serving White and more affluent students...
In the U.S. today, school districts serving the largest populations of Black, Latino, or American Indian students receive roughly $1,800, or 13 percent, less per student in state and local funding than those serving the fewest students of color." https://edtrust.org/resource/funding-gaps-2018/
I don't want to take away from your greater rant about suburbs but had a thought per the bolded. I suppose I can't speak for all core cities in all states. Most core cities have city income taxes. If you work in the city you are still subject to pay a small portion of income tax, even if you don't live in it. Most legacy cities have some form of this. This does force some of the suburban dwellers that want the advantage of the city benefits, but shy from the negative parts of city life to contribute by default.
I thought city personal income taxes only apply to city residents. I could be wrong though.
Are NYC and Atlanta the only two that are multiple counties (NYC in 5 counties and Atlanta in 2) though NYC has 5 self contained counties I believe which we call boroughs
They’re two different cases, really. Atlanta is a city that is in Fulton County, with some spillover into a neighboring county. But much of the land area in both counties is not part of the city of Atlanta. There are a few examples of that around the country. Raleigh, Dallas, Charleston SC, among others.
I don’t know another city other than NYC where multiple counties are the building blocks of the city.
I thought city personal income taxes only apply to city residents. I could be wrong though.
No they are subject to all income earners. Again I'm sure it varies by state and local tax codes. Here in Grand Rapids the city income tax rate is 1.5% for residents. It is .75% for non-residents who work in the city. Every other Michigan municipality with a local income tax is similar.
I thought city personal income taxes only apply to city residents. I could be wrong though.
That’s true in New York. I’m not sure what other cities have local income taxes or how they’re levied.
I think some cities levy a payroll tax, in which case it doesn’t matter where the employees live.
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.
