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.
Wouldn't it be smart for the City of Rochester to annex parts of Irondequoit and parts of Greece? Both of those suburbs are dying rapidly and if the city took over it would help out the area. Also, it would increase the population of the city from 206,000 to about 245,000-265,000 residents which would be great for the city and would bring jobs.
What ever happened to the PAETEC Tower? It was a very good idea as it would bring over 3,000 jobs to the city (of its 4,000) and, if built in an attractive way such as a sightseeing deck at the top where Lake Ontario is visable, tourists.
Wouldn't it be smart for the City of Rochester to annex parts of Irondequoit and parts of Greece? Both of those suburbs are dying rapidly and if the city took over it would help out the area. Also, it would increase the population of the city from 206,000 to about 245,000-265,000 residents which would be great for the city and would bring jobs.
Why should the city only take over suburbs that are "dying rapidly"? Is it because the city is where things go to die? As if Rochester's city government doesn't have enough problems to deal with within the present city limits.
Anyway, I'm all for annexing suburbs, but I think the city of Rochester should merge with all the suburbs in Monroe County. Let the regional government take a much bigger lead than the individual municipalities. But, of course, people in Pittsford would never go for that, because according to an imaginary line they are totally unrelated to (and have no responsibility to) the city of Rochester.
As to your idea that annexing Greece and Irondequoit would lead to job creation, I'm having trouble following your logic. If you're saying that the mere perception of a city that is 20% bigger would lead to the creation of jobs, that seems ridiculous. After all, there wouldn't be any more people in the region, and they wouldn't even have moved.
Implementing regional government would have no effect on job creation. Actually, the hope would be that it would have a negative effect on some jobs in the public sector, by eliminating some of the unnecessary, redundant positions at the town and regional government levels.
Why should the city only take over suburbs that are "dying rapidly"? Is it because the city is where things go to die? As if Rochester's city government doesn't have enough problems to deal with within the present city limits.
Anyway, I'm all for annexing suburbs, but I think the city of Rochester should merge with all the suburbs in Monroe County. Let the regional government take a much bigger lead than the individual municipalities. But, of course, people in Pittsford would never go for that, because according to an imaginary line they are totally unrelated to (and have no responsibility to) the city of Rochester.
As to your idea that annexing Greece and Irondequoit would lead to job creation, I'm having trouble following your logic. If you're saying that the mere perception of a city that is 20% bigger would lead to the creation of jobs, that seems ridiculous. After all, there wouldn't be any more people in the region, and they wouldn't even have moved.
Implementing regional government would have no effect on job creation. Actually, the hope would be that it would have a negative effect on some jobs in the public sector, by eliminating some of the unnecessary, redundant positions at the town and regional government levels.
or you could do this with certain things like having a county school district or dissolving village or smaller police forces.
I 100% agree with dissolving villages and useless town police forces/schools. There is not need for each town to have a shchool district (or even multiple ones like Irondequoit). A county police force would work out much better.
Somebody needs to stand up to the unions that preach all hell will break loose if a town loses its police force or school district. Plenty of other areas in the country do it and they are just fine.
Just merge city and county. It cuts waste/spending through shared resources. Give all the villages an opt-out, but the NY style town is such a dumb concept. If Rochester merged with Monroe County itd be an example statewide.
I don't think you have to worry just about the unions. Can you imagine what the people in Pittsford would do if you told them that their school district was going to merge with the city?
I don't think you have to worry just about the unions. Can you imagine what the people in Pittsford would do if you told them that their school district was going to merge with the city?
You can still have zones within a county school district the same way boroughs in NYC have multiple zones or districts within them.
Also, turn towns into suburban cities. If villages don't want to dissolve, then make them a separate entity similar to a smaller city. Then, in turn, all taxes within that community are such and not this pay village and town tax stuff we have.
I have been pro-consolidation for awhile. The two complaints that I usually hear about from people are: that they feel the "trash" will work their way into their neighborhood, and the local government that did serve them before would be gone and they would have more problems with services.
I have listened to, and read a few articles on this. One talk show compared upstate NY to NYC and why NYC still does well and upstate NY does not. One example that I thought was outstanding, was the fact that NYC has one school district for 8 million+ people. Rochester has (forget the exact number) almost 19 for the metro area. NYC different layers of government. But again 8 million people. Rochester 200k+.
NYC combined Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Staten Island into one city. The Rochester metro has Rochester, Irondequoit, Greece, Henrietta, Gates, Pittsford, Brighton, etc. The Rochester metro population is still only 1 mill+. Now each of those cities, towns, neighborhoods, and the county they are contained in, all have their own government. NYC has one fire department, the Rochester metro has many.
Now for the people who are worried about the consolidation problems. The cities that have tried this have had reduced amount of crime per capita. So either the population went up to offset the problem, or violent crime went down. Indianapolis for example. "Nonetheless, crime in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods remains a problem. Areas of Indianapolis that were unincorporated or separate municipalities before the 1970 city-county consolidation generally have significantly lower crime rates although their aggregate population is higher than the old pre-consolidation Indianapolis city limits. Thus, crime figures for the Consolidated City and the entire Marion County average out to a low rate." From: Indianapolis Government at IndyIndiana.com (http://www.indyindiana.com/indianapolis_government.htm - broken link)
So the problem areas that were a problem, are still a problem. But overall the crime rate per capita has gone down since the 70's when the area consolidated. Indy is also one of the only growing rust belt cities. Heres more, the cost of living is also cheaper: Cost of Living comparison calculator and Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitors sites is not allowedand Cost of living: Compare prices in two cities - CNNMoney.com AND it has a good job climate.
Not to bash Rochester or anything but, there is no way that consolidation would not benefit us in some way.
Why should the city only take over suburbs that are "dying rapidly"? Is it because the city is where things go to die? As if Rochester's city government doesn't have enough problems to deal with within the present city limits.
The consolidation is a package deal. The city consolidates with the suburbs and BOTH reduce the amount of government they have. Both can now share utilities and services.
The consolidation helps private jobs because there will be less government involvement and more importantly, less taxes. We want more private jobs than public jobs. Increasing public jobs just raises taxes.
Last edited by cheese9988; 10-16-2009 at 02:42 PM..
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.
