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.
While PA does not have more local governments than anywhere else (that title goes to Illinois, as state law allows special taxing districts to be created for virtually any reason) we have more municipalities than any other state
We currently have 2,562 municipalities. Of these, 770 have populations of under 1,000. 407 of these are boroughs. Or more broadly, out of the 957 boroughs, 689 have populations of under 3,000.
Boroughs were, as far as I can tell, originally given incorporation powers to be stepping stones to becoming actual cities. Since the 1950s, they've floundered for some of the same reasons as cities have - they lack undeveloped land outside of their borders, which puts them at a disadvantage in the more built up parts of the state, unless they become a quaint area which effectively gentrifies. In rural areas, often the whole reason for the borough (mining, manufacturing, etc) is gone and they're just running on inertia.
Regardless, while even rural townships of small size make a good deal of sense, I feel as though the vast majority of boroughs are irrelevant these days. Some large boroughs (State College, Norristown, Pottstown, etc) should just be cities. Others (Particularly in Allegheny County, Delaware County, and the Wyoming Valley) often form a continuous urban fabric and don't really have a distinct identity. In the Pittsburgh area several townships incorporated as boroughs for transform their government (Plum, Jefferson Hills, Economy, Murraysville), but could easily fit under modern "township of the 1st" form of government.
This would clearly leave some room for boroughs as city-like municipalities of moderate size. Places like Mahanoy City are geographically isolated, very different from their rural hinterlands, and will never be big enough to be a city. But for every case like that there's five boroughs which seem to be irrelevant.
Obviously this is a pipe dream, but I'm curious as to thoughts anyway.
boroughs seem to be able to retain their "town" better than townships in my experience. the towns in townships often become afterthoughts. what's interesting is that boroughs are growing in eastern pa (particularly in lancaster, chester, and I believe montgomery (not sure about bucks)) but shrinking in much of the rest of the state. each borough is different though and I think that, given the current dynamic, indepedent borough services are a thing of the past (such as police, fire, and sometimes even schools). OTOH, people in the borough of jenkintown like their school, unlike township schools, there are no buses, everyone walks.
successful (nice)boroughs I think think of
ambler, jenkintown, narberth, mt joy, carlisle, elizabethtown, phoenixville, west chester, jim thorpe, lititz,lansdale, media, swarthmore, downingtown is alright.eta: yardley, newtown
question: why is the township better than a borough and county arrangement?
boroughs seem to be able to retain their "town" better than townships in my experience. the towns in townships often become afterthoughts.
I agree. I think some of this is due to zoning, however. The zoning/urban planning which boroughs provide for is probably their best selling point. I definitely notice the difference, having grown up mostly in Connecticut, where the blending of old and new construction was much more seamless than the sharp boundaries you often see in PA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman
What's interesting is that boroughs are growing in eastern pa (particularly in lancaster, chester, and I believe montgomery (not sure about bucks)) but shrinking in much of the rest of the state. each borough is different though and I think that, given the current dynamic, independent borough services are a thing of the past (such as police, fire, and sometimes even schools). OTOH, people in the borough of jenkintown like their school, unlike township schools, there are no buses, everyone walks.
successful (nice)boroughs I think think of
ambler, jenkintown, narberth, mt joy, carlisle, elizabethtown, phoenixville, west chester, jim thorpe, lititz,lansdale, media, swarthmore, downingtown is alright.eta: yardley, newtown
Southeastern PA, on the whole, didn't go crazy with municipal fragmentation (outside of the near part of Delaware County, which is insane). Most of the boroughs are at least a square mile, have more than 1,000 people, and work well as independent places. I think part of what helped it is the boroughs were mostly 16th and 17th century creations - real places which had a reason to be where they were. In contrast, many of the boroughs in the remainder of the state were often set up specifically as "company towns" - and the company has long since moved away. So you either end up with tons of fragmented municipalities in a continuous developed fabric (like the Wyoming Valley) or isolated stands of dense, late 19th century housing in the middle of nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman
question: why is the township better than a borough and county arrangement?
It's not so much a question of better. It's just a small rural township which never had a large population is somewhat defensible, since forced amalgamation could end up (in extreme cases) with very physically large municipalities. On the other hand, a coal patch borough which never was very big, and now has a few hundred people left, has no feasible reason to exist any longer.
I agree. I think some of this is due to zoning, however. The zoning/urban planning which boroughs provide for is probably their best selling point. I definitely notice the difference, having grown up mostly in Connecticut, where the blending of old and new construction was much more seamless than the sharp boundaries you often see in PA.
I agree, and if the boroughs could grow a little in size the schools might be more justifiable (another big benefit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Southeastern PA, on the whole, didn't go crazy with municipal fragmentation (outside of the near part of Delaware County, which is insane). Most of the boroughs are at least a square mile, have more than 1,000 people, and work well as independent places. I think part of what helped it is the boroughs were mostly 16th and 17th century creations - real places which had a reason to be where they were. In contrast, many of the boroughs in the remainder of the state were often set up specifically as "company towns" - and the company has long since moved away. So you either end up with tons of fragmented municipalities in a continuous developed fabric (like the Wyoming Valley) or isolated stands of dense, late 19th century housing in the middle of nowhere.
SEPA also kept growing, boroughs went out of fashion, now they're back in. it does seem like a situation where the answer is "it depends." fwiw, lancaster and delaware counties were both part of chester county originally (which is why chester is in delaware not chester county). montgomery was originally philadelphia county (the two together would be more like allegheny). I like boroughs in some respects and would be loathe to give them up to sprawl dominance (which is what the townships are) but there are more counties than needed. it used to be too hard to get to chester from chester county so they created west chester but today, that's no longer the case. of course, who wants to chester (not even the county seat these days).
in eastern pa, do you think there's a need for townships or could most of it be carved up into boroughs and counties?
We currently have 2,562 municipalities. Of these, 770 have populations of under 1,000. 407 of these are boroughs. Or more broadly, out of the 957 boroughs, 689 have populations of under 3,000.
But why stop there? There are 14 counties with populations less than the borough of State College.
Most political divisions that were established hundreds of years ago in any country don't make much sense to most people today. The city of Detroit doubled its geographic size between 1910 and 1920. Don't you think they would like to give back that land today?
A county of 5K people with 5 townships and 2 boroughs is mind-boggling stupid. Pa should reduce it's counties by a factor of 2, and it's municipalities by a factor of 4.
Nothing smaller than 40K should be called a city.
I agree that all the boroughs should be merged with nearby cities or with townships. The biggest ones can become cities.
Boroughs keep the wheels of government close to the people.
Being relegated to just a number and forcing people to go downtown just to deal with road repair or other functions of local government isn't what a lot of people really want to do.
The City of Pittsburgh government here is pretty distant, as well as pretty well entrenched. No matter how much one complains about it, it isn't going to change, we'll have the same Democratic Party machine in place.
SEPA also kept growing, boroughs went out of fashion, now they're back in. it does seem like a situation where the answer is "it depends." fwiw, lancaster and delaware counties were both part of chester county originally (which is why chester is in delaware not chester county). montgomery was originally philadelphia county (the two together would be more like allegheny). I like boroughs in some respects and would be loathe to give them up to sprawl dominance (which is what the townships are) but there are more counties than needed. it used to be too hard to get to chester from chester county so they created west chester but today, that's no longer the case. of course, who wants to chester (not even the county seat these days).
in eastern pa, do you think there's a need for townships or could most of it be carved up into boroughs and counties?
So you're saying we should abolish the townships, return them to unincorporated county land, and just have county and borough government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
But why stop there? There are 14 counties with populations less than the borough of State College.
Most political divisions that were established hundreds of years ago in any country don't make much sense to most people today. The city of Detroit doubled its geographic size between 1910 and 1920. Don't you think they would like to give back that land today?
A county of 5K people with 5 townships and 2 boroughs is mind-boggling stupid. Pa should reduce it's counties by a factor of 2, and it's municipalities by a factor of 4.
County government in PA is traditionally pretty weak, so I'm not sure how much benefit we get from merging counties. There are a few which seem nonsensical like Fulton and Montour. But on the whole, our counties aren't especially small compared to other states. The system of government below the county level is where it seems screwed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
Nothing smaller than 40K should be called a city
40,000 is a good threshold, because it results in all of the traditional cities being above, and result in State College becoming a city. I also wonder if some population density threshold should be put in - otherwise six largely suburban townships would also be cities even before annexations (I think you can argue Upper Darby should be a city now however). The problem is, what level to put it at? Some traditional cities like Scranton have a huge amount of undeveloped land within city limits, so they appear to have suburban densities even though they are not actually suburban.
With a threshold of 40,000, however, I think it would really be needed to keep the borough system intact. There are plenty of "places" (cities and boroughs) with less than 40,000 people which are geographically distinct from the surrounding townships.
Too many municipal governments in Pennsylvania are nothing more than glorified homeowner's associations. They have little or no commerce, and they provide no essential government services (police, fire, schools, sewage, etc.). There is no reason for them to exist.
If I enacted municipal government reform, here's how I'd do it:
1. Force municipal governments to provide all their own essential services like those I listed above, plus have a minimum threshold of tax revenue coming from commerce. If they can't do all these things presently, then they need to merge and consolidate until they can.
2. Once a township has 10,000 or more in population, it must become a borough or municipality. There's no need to eliminate townships necessarily, but they must remain largely rural since providing services for a rural population is why townships formed in the first place.
3. To eliminate confusion, post office names have to be tied to municipal governments. For example, Lower Merion Township could adopt King of Prussia as its official name once the new population law forces it to become a borough or municipality.
It's much more simple this way, and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would finally have suburbs for grownups to boot.
Too many municipal governments in Pennsylvania are nothing more than glorified homeowner's associations. They have little or no commerce, and they provide no essential government services (police, fire, schools, sewage, etc.). There is no reason for them to exist.
If I enacted municipal government reform, here's how I'd do it:
You have it backwards, homeowner's associations are glorified municipal governments..and probably a worse way of self governing than a borough or village.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella
1. Force municipal governments to provide all their own essential services like those I listed above, plus have a minimum threshold of tax revenue coming from commerce. If they can't do all these things presently, then they need to merge and consolidate until they can.
this is a pretty terrible idea and very anti-democratic. today boroughs can decide whether to run their own (jenkintown does) or contract these things out. that is a much better approach than forcing small governments to do things that make little sense. over time, it may make sense to run them on their own or contract them out, the life of a town is much longer than mine or yours and what makes sense will change over time. for me, I'd be more interested in borough run education than police and fire. I'd also go so far as to point out that cities are required to provide police and I believe schools which is a problem. for example, lancaster, whose main source of revenue is real estate and has enormous amounts of tax exempt real estate, is struggling to fund its own police force. it might make a lot of sense to simply contract out to the county for police services, particularly in today's day and age where technology is expensive and has a lot of economies of scale and the county is developed. worse, they are required to have one and they are required to submit to arbitration which doesn't take into account ability to pay. a borough has flexibility and that's a good thing. for all the complaints on here about "too many governments" it's the state and city governments that are often the most corrupt and incompetent which argues against large governments in my view and for democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella
2. Once a township has 10,000 or more in population, it must become a borough or municipality. There's no need to eliminate townships necessarily, but they must remain largely rural since providing services for a rural population is why townships formed in the first place.
why not just eliminate the township, is there a need for a township of 5k?
seems like that would make less sense than a borough of 5k which would be much more dense in nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella
3. To eliminate confusion, post office names have to be tied to municipal governments. For example, Lower Merion Township could adopt King of Prussia as its official name once the new population law forces it to become a borough or municipality.
DOA. eliminating the snootiest address on the main line for the mall? might be like renaming mt lebanon monroeville. who cares about postal addresses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella
It's much more simple this way, and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would finally have suburbs for grownups to boot.
what exactly does this mean? grownups don't live in the suburbs?
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.
