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.
I've always thought smaller counties are usually ran more efficient instead of the bloated large counties w/ larger population and less representation.
Personally, I believe smaller counties are beneficial and are a better reflection of certain demographics, values and/or income lvls. What person in downtown PHX has anything in common with the senior in Sun City, the young family of 4 in Queen Creek or single man/woman living in Mesa?
You seem to be conflating legislative districts with county boundaries. There is no such association. In fact, legislative boundaries are gerrymandered to make it very hard for lower income areas to ever receive proportionate representation. Changing county boundaries would not change that reality.
The fact of the matter is that, in Arizona and especially in the case of Maricopa, counties do not provide any services that realistically vary depending on what people have "in common". Cities provide the services we use everyday. The county has more impact in rural areas but most of Maricopa outside of city limits is creosote and cactus on federal and state trust lands.
The one service at the heart of this cockamamie idea is elections. The legislators behind it are all big lie proponents. They are of the mind that if they controlled the election process they could control the outcome in all but one of the new counties. That is an affront to democracy and an appalling proposition. If you believe anything else is behind this you do not know Arizona politics.
Break off counties by income levels and the poor counties won't be able to fund services where they're most needed. ...and the poor get poorer.
Set them up by demographics or "values" (by which are really talking about ideology) and you have redlining, segregation, political gerrymandering, and all the other good stuff we've spent the last hundred+ years trying to eliminate.
You want to live where everyone is just like you - join a cult.
Break off counties by income levels and the poor counties won't be able to fund services where they're most needed. ...and the poor get poorer.
Set them up by demographics or "values" (by which are really talking about ideology) and you have redlining, segregation, political gerrymandering, and all the other good stuff we've spent the last hundred+ years trying to eliminate.
You want to live where everyone is just like you - join a cult.
Where I live, I'm more of a minority in terms of generation compared to the majority which are boomers. I'd never want to live in an area with the same demographics, that's boring.
You seem to be conflating legislative districts with county boundaries. There is no such association. In fact, legislative boundaries are gerrymandered to make it very hard for lower income areas to ever receive proportionate representation. Changing county boundaries would not change that reality.
The fact of the matter is that, in Arizona and especially in the case of Maricopa, counties do not provide any services that realistically vary depending on what people have "in common". Cities provide the services we use everyday. The county has more impact in rural areas but most of Maricopa outside of city limits is creosote and cactus on federal and state trust lands.
The one service at the heart of this cockamamie idea is elections. The legislators behind it are all big lie proponents. They are of the mind that if they controlled the election process they could control the outcome in all but one of the new counties. That is an affront to democracy and an appalling proposition. If you believe anything else is behind this you do not know Arizona politics.
I see where you're coming from, a better thought out county split would be on geography and city boundaries, but the terrain in Maricopa is majority cactus and large hills.
The names are sort of tradition as the bulk of AZ counties are named for tribes. Anyway Mogollon is not a tribe name and neither is Hohokam for that matter. I have wondered though if the tribe name thing is OK with wokeness. Cleveland can't be the Indians. Maybe they should all be changed.
They seem to be fine with tribal names, but we just can't refer to them as "Indians", "redskins", "squaws", etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
Light rail benefits everybody by providing a cheaper transportation service that allows more people to get off the roads. Benefits include:
- Reduction of cars on the road, unburdening existing infrastructure and reducing maintenance costs of existing roads (saving money in the long run and saving time)
- Improves air quality in a city well known for smog (improves quality of life for the entire environment locally)
- Encourages higher density buildings, resulting in a reduction of sprawl and the urban heat island (something you think can be encouraged without transit which is simply not true)
- Shows signs of economic investment and overall improvements, creating further economic investment in the corridors generating significant increases in taxes (via increase in land value) to provide better quality services like schools or parks all the while creating more amenities and housing which for exurban or suburban residents means more restaurants, a larger often more educated labor pool (as more educated people tend to support more transit projects)
The above examples are specific to places like central Phoenix & Tempe. Light rail has a much greater benefit (and higher demand) in the urban areas than it does in the suburbs, and especially those in the outlying or rural areas. The rancher in rural Maricopa County is so far removed from the city, and highly likely would have no use for light rail, but he's still paying taxes for it because he resides in the same county as Phoenix. Makes no sense. He would be better served by being in a separate county with officials representing what his needs are (and the needs of many other people like him who have little use for city projects).
At the same time, having a condensed county representing Phoenix and/or Tempe would work much better at creating the better mass transit & higher density that you favor. Scottsdale rejected light rail, as did Glendale. This proves that being in the same county doesn't do much of anything to encourage mass transit improvements, or infrastructure projects in general. Many suburbs prefer to do their own thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
The small counties out east are from an archaic time when people relied on participating politically in person in town meetings on travel via horse and carriage. We are beyond this and Maricopa County is better suited for the modern era which is less government overhead, significantly improved regional cohesion for a sprawling metropolitan area who relies on doing geographically large projects and handling them in a timely fashion.
Out east? Harris County, TX is just 1,000 square miles, and the Houston metro area encompasses NINE counties. Dallas County, TX is less than 1,000 square miles, and the Dallas/Fort Worth region makes up 11 counties. Denver is a consolidated city & county, and their metro area comprises 10 counties. California has a few of the largest land mass counties in the nation, but the Bay area is made up of 9 fairly small sized counties.
Now, in contrast, Maricopa is the LARGEST "urban" county in the nation in terms of land area. There is no legitimate reason why it has to be over 9,000 square miles, much of it empty desert. Even Los Angeles & San Diego counties (fairly large land masses) pale in comparison to the size of Maricopa County. I truly don't understand why you want to keep things the same, especially having a "progressive" mentality on many subjects. Or could it be that you just don't want to see a small blue county surrounded by a sea of red? I try to look beyond politics and see the need for separation based on practical matters.
The above examples are specific to places like central Phoenix & Tempe. Light rail has a much greater benefit (and higher demand) in the urban areas than it does in the suburbs, and especially those in the outlying or rural areas. The rancher in rural Maricopa County is so far removed from the city, and highly likely would have no use for light rail, but he's still paying taxes for it because he resides in the same county as Phoenix. Makes no sense. He would be better served by being in a separate county with officials representing what his needs are (and the needs of many other people like him who have little use for city projects).
At the same time, having a condensed county representing Phoenix and/or Tempe would work much better at creating the better mass transit & higher density that you favor. Scottsdale rejected light rail, as did Glendale. This proves that being in the same county doesn't do much of anything to encourage mass transit improvements, or infrastructure projects in general. Many suburbs prefer to do their own thing.
And the apartment dweller downtown has little use for the county agricultural extension service. Not everyone uses every service, but everyone gets something. Both the rancher and the urban resident are having some needs met. That's basically what government is. Otherwise where do you stop splitting up the population?
We could have a county with no schools just for the childless. A county just for families that need support for the disabled. A county just for people without pets who don't want to pay for the lost animal department. One for non-readers who don't want to pay for libraries. And so on... Of course compromises would need to be made - what's more important to you, Grandma in the wheelchair or Rover? And then everyone could move to a new county every time their situation changes.
Or just try a no-government, pay-as-you-go-for-all-services system. Then you could pay individual market rates with a hefty profit margin built in whenever you need a service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Out east? Harris County, TX is just 1,000 square miles, and the Houston metro area encompasses NINE counties. Dallas County, TX is less than 1,000 square miles, and the Dallas/Fort Worth region makes up 11 counties. Denver is a consolidated city & county, and their metro area comprises 10 counties. California has a few of the largest land mass counties in the nation, but the Bay area is made up of 9 fairly small sized counties.
Now, in contrast, Maricopa is the LARGEST "urban" county in the nation in terms of land area. There is no legitimate reason why it has to be over 9,000 square miles, much of it empty desert. Even Los Angeles & San Diego counties (fairly large land masses) pale in comparison to the size of Maricopa County.
And NYC has five counties in the city proper. So what?
Phoenix isn't Houston or Dallas. Or LA. Or San Diego. Nor should it be. Then it wouldn't be Phoenix.
Of course it is. But then you've got the usual smokescreen of rationalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Or could it be that you just don't want to see a small blue county surrounded by a sea of red? I try to look beyond politics and see the need for separation based on practical matters.
Should read: "I want to see a small blue county surrounded by a sea of red, but need to make it not blatantly look like politics and justify the separation based on practical matters."
Although in fairness to VN, with him it's only partly politics. There's also the "World Class City" fixation topped off with a hearty dollop of Metro Envy. And if we can't lure all the "right kind of people" here, then let's take the few we do have, gather them together, and keep the others out.
Seriously look at the political map. This is drawn so that duh libs have one county and the Patriots get several new ones. Draw these lines differently and you get a different result
Bigger problem: not one reason in favor other than Maricopa is big.
The one thing I really dislike about this proposal is the names of the new counties. Why must everything be a tribal name?! Perhaps keep Maricopa for one of the county names, but have it include the east Valley ... and have it take up the part of Pinal County that includes the city of Maricopa. I wouldn't mind Phoenix being an independent city, but the west Valley could be its own county, and Glendale County sounds appropriate for the title. The far western parts should be separated as well (the rural areas which include Wickenburg, Tonopah, and Gila Bend).
I think O'odham county is still too big and encompassing a lot of desolate land not worth much. They could split O'odham county in half north/south and make Gila Bend the south section, Glendale county is the north section. That would split Maricopa county into 5 pieces.
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.
