This here is from another thread that lost direction that should really have one of its own.
It seems that people think that New Jersey should consolidate communities in another thread, that seems to be starting flames already, so I figure lets continue it here and keep the other thread for what it was intended to do.
I think I am all in favor of some boroughs and townships with the same name to be redundant and should merge like Chester Borough and Chester Township in Morris County. Then Somerville and Bridgewater are another two as people treat them as synonymous anyway.
Then outside of New Jersey there are places where the counties and its largest city should merge as well that maybe some people feel that they would like to suggest and discuss as well. Use this here thread as that.
Michigan has an issue with having a city and a township with the same name. There's Lansing (the state capital) and Lansing Township, both separate entities but with the same name. There's also Saginaw and Saginaw Township and Holland and Holland Township and..........well you get the point.
These could all probably be merged.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 07, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
Michigan has an issue with having a city and a township with the same name.
Wisconsin has the same issue as well. There are many, many examples of this all over the state.
Also I was told by a native Connecticut resident now residing in Florida that Groton, CT are actually two separate entities as well. You have the City of Groton, and the Town of Groton (which I think is equivalent to a township elsewhere outside of CT).
I believe that Greenwich has the same issue of being both a city and town in the same area.
Yes these should be merged. Even in cases like Metuchen, NJ that is surrounded by Edison, NJ; they should be merged as well.
Seems to me like townships in general are kind of a waste. In Oklahoma we don't have them at all (other than for survey purposes), with the county administering all services in unincorporated areas, and it works just fine.
There's a lot of areas where it seems like giving them their own county is wasteful. I doubt that Texas really needs 254 counties. There's quite a few of them where a map of the county looks like a square, divided into quadrants by two state highways that cross at right angles, with one town at the center that is the county seat, and if there's any other towns, their populations are less than 500. The only real purpose for having a county like that is to keep the amount of physical space in each county down, but west of Texas there's states with far larger counties that get on just fine.
I believe that Texas has some counties with only one corporated city within it. That should be all county just like Arlington, VA where there is no municipality at all and the county government governs the whole county.
Kansas also has some far west counties with only the county seat as the only city corporated within the county.
New Jersey is a special case that requires a book (http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/product/New-Jerseys-Multiple-Municipal-Madness,1829.aspx) to explain more than it does a thread.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on February 07, 2015, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 07, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
Michigan has an issue with having a city and a township with the same name.
Wisconsin has the same issue as well. There are many, many examples of this all over the state.
There is even a case in Waukesha County where there was a village of Pewaukee inside a Town of Pewaukee. The town decided to incorporate but kept the name of Pewaukee as a city, so now there is the Village of Pewaukee surrounded by the City of Pewaukee.
Montana has two consolidated city-counties, Butte/Silver Bow and Anaconda/Deer Lodge.
Honestly, it doesn't make too much sense to have independent county governments in most of Montana. Most counties have one or two incorporated cities and are surrounded in ranchland. These counties and cities have barely any revenue, so it's kind of silly for each one to employ a clerk, for instance. That money could be better spent with one consolidated clerk and an extra road maintenance guy or something.
The big issue is in municipal codes/etc- there tend to be more laws in incorporated communities than out in the counties, and often city folks don't want ranchers influencing their decisions or vice-versa. To me, the solution is to maintain separate elected officials but consolidate administrative staffing- and that model is used in Montana in a few places. Billings, Broadview, and Yellowstone County, for instance, share a planning office- the planners report to and are accountable to the elected officials in all three jurisdictions. Missoula did the same with Missoula County for a long time.
I see that as the best way to save money while maintaining some form of independence.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 07, 2015, 01:35:23 PMI believe that Greenwich has the same issue of being both a city and town in the same area.
Wikipedia says there is a CDP called "Greenwich" inside the town, but no government thereof. Same with the town website.
In my new home in middle Georgia, the City of Milledgeville (population 19,000+) and Baldwin County (population 47,000) are debating the potential for merging. Milledgeville is the only separately incorporated municipality within the County. The City government is opposed and our Representative in the Georgia General Assembly is in favor. There is even talk of merging Jones County (immediately to the east) and Baldwin County.
Further to the east, Bibb County and the City of Macon have recently completed their merger.
Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista. What the fuck?
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 05:59:50 PM
Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista. What the fuck?
Explain, please.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 07, 2015, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 05:59:50 PM
Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista. What the fuck?
Explain, please.
It is all part of the Reedy Creek Improvement District which is all a Disney entity.
This is Bay Lake:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Fff%2FOrange_County_Florida_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Bay_Lake_Highlighted.svg%2F500px-Orange_County_Florida_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Bay_Lake_Highlighted.svg.png&hash=f548a1ebfcf4485af2a4f0f9f7d6aa2f2ec1f45b)
Lake Buena Vista is just to the east.
There may be some legal reason for having a city within the RCID, but why two cities?
Consolidation? We need to be doing the opposite - by allowing more independent cities. In most of America these days, the rural areas hate the cities and vote against them. The cities should be allowed to become independent of counties that hate them.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 09:34:05 PM
Consolidation? We need to be doing the opposite - by al*lowing more independent cities. In most of America these days, the rural areas hate the cities and vote against them. The cities should be allowed to become independent of counties that hate them.
In Virginia, cities are
by definition independent jurisdictions (dating back to the 19th century), never part of counties (though in spite of that, cities are sometimes the county seat of the surrounding or adjoining county).
Virginia towns are not independent and are always part of a county.
This system has not given the municipalities more (as in liberal as in Democratic) political power in the General Assembly in Richmond.
I'm of the opinion that Connecticut made a big mistake when they abolished the county governments.
We're left with 169 town governments, with many functions inefficiently duplicated by most.
I think there would be something to be said for abolishing the towns, and transitioning municipal functions up to the 14 Councils of Governments that were formed because of the complications of abolishing counties.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2015, 09:39:52 PM
This system has not given the municipalities more (as in liberal as in Democratic) political power in the General Assembly in Richmond.
The cities should have more power to govern themselves.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 07, 2015, 01:46:19 PM
I believe that Texas has some counties with only one corporated city within it. That should be all county just like Arlington, VA where there is no municipality at all and the county government governs the whole county.
There are some the are all-county (no cities): Terrell, Loving, Kenedy, Crockett, Motley, Borden, and probably some others. There are also some counties in which the county seat is not incorporated but there is an incorporated city elsewhere in the county, including Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Palo Pinto. Mineral Wells is big enough to reasonably need to be a city. My guess about Dell City and Valentine is that they felt neglected by the far-away county seat and wanted to run their own government services.
Central cities are often neglected by the counties they are in - even though the people in the cities are paying most of the county taxes.
How is this not an unconstitutional form of taxation without representation?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 07, 2015, 01:47:41 PM
New Jersey is a special case that requires a book (http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/product/New-Jerseys-Multiple-Municipal-Madness,1829.aspx) to explain more than it does a thread.
Good book.
New Jersey relies on the "New England Towns" method of local government (no unincorporated areas, strong home rule), but still has county government. Yes, many northeastern states have no concept of unincorporated areas that only receive government services from a county and/or state. Its gets more weird in New Jersey. If a municipality does not have its own police force, the STATE POLICE is tasked with protecting it. This is despite every county having its own sheriff's office (required by the state constitution). It gets better, some county sheriff's offices have a patrol division and three counties have a "County Police Department" separate from their sheriff's office!
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 09:34:05 PM
Consolidation? We need to be doing the opposite - by allowing more independent cities. In most of America these days, the rural areas hate the cities and vote against them. The cities should be allowed to become independent of counties that hate them.
Free silver! William Jennings Bryan will save us (after he kills that damn evolutionist propaganda).
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 09:34:05 PM
Consolidation? We need to be doing the opposite - by allowing more independent cities. In most of America these days, the rural areas hate the cities and vote against them. The cities should be allowed to become independent of counties that hate them.
You might ask St. Louis and Baltimore just how well that has worked out for them.
While it depends on state laws, the independence of the cities of St. Louis and Baltimore came at the price of their losing the ability to annex surrounding areas. This creates a problem when people and businesses exit the city, which generally reduces the tax base without a corresponding reduction in the costs of infrastructure maintenance.
To maintain their tax base, cities generally have to do "something", either annexing unincorporated areas which are growing, or taking actions to attract/retain businesses and residents (tricky because municipalities generally lack sufficient foresight and/or the regional planning resources to make that a viable strategy over the long term).
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 09:34:05 PM
Consolidation? We need to be doing the opposite - by allowing more independent cities. In most of America these days, the rural areas hate the cities and vote against them. The cities should be allowed to become independent of counties that hate them.
This is a bad argument though because more rural areas in states also hate urban areas and vote against them. Ask an upstate New Yorkers and rural Illinoisian how they feel about NYC and Chicago. Do you propose that we allow each city to be its own state or district? Ask DC how not being in a state has worked out for them.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 10:12:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2015, 09:39:52 PM
This system has not given the municipalities more (as in liberal as in Democratic) political power in the General Assembly in Richmond.
The cities should have more power to govern themselves.
That's what home rule is for. In Illinois, home rule is granted after a vote or automatically when the municipality reaches 25,000 in population.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 11:01:53 PM
Central cities are often neglected by the counties they are in - even though the people in the cities are paying most of the county taxes.
How is this not an unconstitutional form of taxation without representation?
Around here, it's the opposite. The rural parts of the counties feel neglected by the urban areas.
That said, I feel that many municipalities in Illinois should consolidate, but they're not the worst offenders. We should start with the school districts. Illinois has more school districts per capita than any other state, including Texas and California. We have a shit-ton of one-school school districts, even in urban areas.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 08, 2015, 09:23:23 AM
You might ask St. Louis and Baltimore just how well that has worked out for them.
From what I've seen in St. Louis lately, it seems to have worked out pretty good. I'd much rather live in St. Louis than in a Sun Belt suburb.
Quote from: Brandon on February 08, 2015, 11:21:25 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 10:12:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2015, 09:39:52 PM
This system has not given the municipalities more (as in liberal as in Democratic) political power in the General Assembly in Richmond.
The cities should have more power to govern themselves.
That's what home rule is for. In Illinois, home rule is granted after a vote or automatically when the municipality reaches 25,000 in population.
The problem is that this often turns into "home rule for me, not for thee." Certain public officials and think tanks in Kentucky are the worst offenders. They think home rule should only apply when a city or county enacts a law they support. The problem is that some of the laws they support are unconstitutional.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 08, 2015, 10:05:28 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 09:34:05 PM
Consolidation? We need to be doing the opposite - by allowing more independent cities. In most of America these days, the rural areas hate the cities and vote against them. The cities should be allowed to become independent of counties that hate them.
This is a bad argument though because more rural areas in states also hate urban areas and vote against them. Ask an upstate New Yorkers and rural Illinoisian how they feel about NYC and Chicago. Do you propose that we allow each city to be its own state or district? Ask DC how not being in a state has worked out for them.
How come NYC never became its own state? I find it hard to believe that it is part of the same state that Buffalo, Syracuse, and even Albany is in as it appears to be in a different world.
Plus I am sure that people as far away as Ripley is from the big city, that their citizens do not like paying taxes to keep the MTA running which does not serve anywhere near them. Yes, I know now if New York City seceded from New York State, they could never survive on their own which is the present answer, but I am talking about ideally considering that other than money they like to do things much different than the rest of the state.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 08, 2015, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 08, 2015, 10:05:28 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 09:34:05 PM
Consolidation? We need to be doing the opposite - by allowing more independent cities. In most of America these days, the rural areas hate the cities and vote against them. The cities should be allowed to become independent of counties that hate them.
This is a bad argument though because more rural areas in states also hate urban areas and vote against them. Ask an upstate New Yorkers and rural Illinoisian how they feel about NYC and Chicago. Do you propose that we allow each city to be its own state or district? Ask DC how not being in a state has worked out for them.
How come NYC never became its own state? I find it hard to believe that it is part of the same state that Buffalo, Syracuse, and even Albany is in as it appears to be in a different world.
Plus I am sure that people as far away as Ripley is from the big city, that their citizens do not like paying taxes to keep the MTA running which does not serve anywhere near them. Yes, I know now if New York City seceded from New York State, they could never survive on their own which is the present answer, but I am talking about ideally considering that other than money they like to do things much different than the rest of the state.
You could say the same for Chicago and Illinois, Atlanta and Georgia and increasingly Charlotte and North Carolina. The urban/rural/small city divide is very large in some cities.
Do Chicago and Cairo or Chicago and Springfield belong in the same state? Or Charlotte and Fayetteville?
Cities are becoming increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan. It doesn't matter if you're in New York, Illinois or even Georgia and North Carolina, there's going to be a rural/urban divide.
I'm a big fan of municipal consolidation. At some point due the rising administrative cost burden, it will be forced on the country. I'd say starting the process pre-need would go much smoother than having it imposed via a state mandate or a bankruptcy judge.
For example, I could see Milwaukee extended south to the Illinois line, absorbing Racine, Kenosha, and all the towns and hamlets, and similarly, Chicago extend to the north to Wisconsin, absorbing Zion and all the rest.
When you contemplate the staggering cost of separate mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, etc. for literally hundreds of enclaves in what is actually a single municipal/metro area you have to realize that kind of profligate wasteful administrative burden will no longer be possible regardless of the hue and cry. It simply won't be affordable, at all, and will have to change.
Quote from: Jardine on February 08, 2015, 02:33:17 PM
I'm a big fan of municipal consolidation. At some point due the rising administrative cost burden, it will be forced on the country.
I guess "forced" really is the proper word.
But there's also the issue of the people's natural right to band together for services. I think people have a right to form small municipalities. I'd rather have a municipality representing me than to have to go it alone.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 07, 2015, 01:35:23 PM
Also I was told by a native Connecticut resident now residing in Florida that Groton, CT are actually two separate entities as well. You have the City of Groton, and the Town of Groton (which I think is equivalent to a township elsewhere outside of CT).
I believe that Greenwich has the same issue of being both a city and town in the same area.
Yes these should be merged. Even in cases like Metuchen, NJ that is surrounded by Edison, NJ; they should be merged as well.
Winsted should also merge with the town of Winchester, and Willimantic with Windham. I believe Naugatuck also has a similar town/boro arrangement.
Willimantic should merge with Windham 32 years ago.
Milford should get with the times and merge with New Milford.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 07, 2015, 11:01:53 PM
Central cities are often neglected by the counties they are in - even though the people in the cities are paying most of the county taxes.
How is this not an unconstitutional form of taxation without representation?
That's an issue Jackson has with Hinds County. 80% of the county's revenue comes from Jackson (as well as having the overwhelming majority of the population), but we get the opposite share in county services. I'd love for the county and city to consolidate, but state law doesn't allow it.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 08, 2015, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Jardine on February 08, 2015, 02:33:17 PM
I'm a big fan of municipal consolidation. At some point due the rising administrative cost burden, it will be forced on the country.
I guess "forced" really is the proper word.
But there's also the issue of the people's natural right to band together for services. I think people have a right to form small municipalities. I'd rather have a municipality representing me than to have to go it alone.
If taxpayers are willing to pay for the duplicated services, no one will be forced to merge their services.
Wisconsin is one of the 'poster children' states in this regard. Nearly all of the state's metros, certainly including my hometown Appleton area, could make excellent use of full metro-wide municipal amalgamations, some involving 20 or more separate munis.
This even includes some very small places such the City of Redgranite (it's about 30 minutes west of Oshkosh on WI 21, with a 2010 USCensus population of 2149) and the adjacent Village of Lohrville (2010 population 402).
Wisconsin leads the USA - all 50 states - in the number of separate units of local government with taxing authority per-capita. Illinois has the highest raw number of such munis while Hawaii has the lowest.
Mike
California's an interesting case in that much of the annexation/consolidation rush for municipalities died down after the 1960s, but by then, many independent suburbs had been established with little desire to lose their own identity (i.e. suburbs in metro Los Angeles that exist primarily to resist annexation by LA itself, such as Burbank). San Diego did shoestring annex San Ysidro in 1957, and Chula Vista annexed the community of Montgomery (named after the nearby freeway?) in the 1980s.
San Jose intentionally expanded its sphere of influence in the 1960s-1970s as a form of growth - end result being largest land area, fewest independent suburbs, and largest (above 1 million) population in the Bay over time, aided of course by the tech boom.
On the other hand San Francisco County originally included San Mateo County until 1856, at which point the city of SF and its county became synonymous with each other (with no further expansion). Absolutely no momentum in the Bay for consolidation.
Up in Sacramento County, several of the longtime suburbs have incorporated in recent years (Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova namely) while residents in Arden have resisted a push for becoming anything other than the status quo of county subunit - even if the area is indistinguishable from Sacramento itself and uses Sacarmento mailing addresses.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 09, 2015, 12:28:41 PM
Wisconsin leads the USA - all 50 states - in the number of separate units of local government with taxing authority per-capita. Illinois has the highest raw number of such munis while Hawaii has the lowest.
You sure about that? Have you taken into account all the sewerage districts, fire protection districts, school districts (including community colleges), library districts, and mosquito abatement districts in Illinois? Yes, I said mosquito abatement districts.
Let's use school districts as an example. I live in an area where there are no fewer than 6 elementary (K-8) school districts that feed into one high school district and are overlaid with a community college district. Did I mention that 4 of these K-8 districts have only one school? All 7 of these districts could be combined.
Quote from: Brandon on February 09, 2015, 02:29:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 09, 2015, 12:28:41 PM
Wisconsin leads the USA - all 50 states - in the number of separate units of local government with taxing authority per-capita. Illinois has the highest raw number of such munis while Hawaii has the lowest.
You sure about that? Have you taken into account all the sewerage districts, fire protection districts, school districts (including community colleges), library districts, and mosquito abatement districts in Illinois? Yes, I said mosquito abatement districts.
Let's use school districts as an example. I live in an area where there are no fewer than 6 elementary (K-8) school districts that feed into one high school district and are overlaid with a community college district. Did I mention that 4 of these K-8 districts have only one school? All 7 of these districts could be combined.
New Jersey has 13 school districts that don't have any students.
I think the key phrase is "taxing authority." School districts often can't levy their own taxes. It's tricky but I think that "taxing authority" just refers to the entities with statutory authority to tax. Counties and towns often tax and give money to the school districts.
Wisconsin has about 1900 unincorporated townships, along with about 600 or so incorporated cities and villages, several hundred school districts, 72 counties, etc, all with taxing authority. Many townships also have one or more sewer and water districts ('sanitary districts'), all also with taxing authority.
And about 5.6M-5.7M people.
Mike
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 09, 2015, 04:57:39 PM
I think the key phrase is "taxing authority." School districts often can't levy their own taxes. It's tricky but I think that "taxing authority" just refers to the entities with statutory authority to tax. Counties and towns often tax and give money to the school districts.
In Illinois, school districts are taxing authorities that do levy their own taxes. Library districts, sewerage districts, fire protection districts, and even the mosquito abatement districts also levy taxes.
No Canadian commenters on the subject? There seems to have been quite a lot of movement on municipal consolidation in Canada, even if there have been some opposing areas that managed to retroactively de-merge.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2015, 12:41:51 PM
California's an interesting case in that much of the annexation/consolidation rush for municipalities died down after the 1960s, but by then, many independent suburbs had been established with little desire to lose their own identity (i.e. suburbs in metro Los Angeles that exist primarily to resist annexation by LA itself, such as Burbank). San Diego did shoestring annex San Ysidro in 1957, and Chula Vista annexed the community of Montgomery (named after the nearby freeway?) in the 1980s.
There's some justification for some of these suburbs to merge with one another, however. Maywood outsourced essentially everything but it's council. Neighboring Bell had the nice little corruption scandal. Neighboring Vernon had one too. Tiny Bell Gardens, Cudahy and Huntington Park haven't had any scandals themselves, but why not? Put those six together, and you have one contiguous city of about 175,000 people covering about 16 square miles (a little bit bigger than nearby Downey), with a fair mix of residential and commercial.
Vernon managed to bribe its way out of forced disincorporation, but it should still be on the table at some point.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2015, 12:41:51 PM
San Jose intentionally expanded its sphere of influence in the 1960s-1970s as a form of growth - end result being largest land area, fewest independent suburbs, and largest (above 1 million) population in the Bay over time, aided of course by the tech boom.
Columbus did something similar, tying municipal water and sewer to annexation. In the process it became the largest city in the state (land and population) which annoys people from Cleveland and Cincy to no end. Isn't our fault you guys didn't plan ahead :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 09, 2015, 02:46:50 PM
New Jersey has 13 school districts that don't have any students.
I don't doubt you one bit, but do you have a link for that? It's hilarious and I'd love to read more about it.
Quote from: admtrap on February 09, 2015, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2015, 12:41:51 PM
California's an interesting case in that much of the annexation/consolidation rush for municipalities died down after the 1960s, but by then, many independent suburbs had been established with little desire to lose their own identity (i.e. suburbs in metro Los Angeles that exist primarily to resist annexation by LA itself, such as Burbank). San Diego did shoestring annex San Ysidro in 1957, and Chula Vista annexed the community of Montgomery (named after the nearby freeway?) in the 1980s.
There's some justification for some of these suburbs to merge with one another, however. Maywood outsourced essentially everything but it's council. Neighboring Bell had the nice little corruption scandal. Neighboring Vernon had one too. Tiny Bell Gardens, Cudahy and Huntington Park haven't had any scandals themselves, but why not? Put those six together, and you have one contiguous city of about 175,000 people covering about 16 square miles (a little bit bigger than nearby Downey), with a fair mix of residential and commercial.
Vernon managed to bribe its way out of forced disincorporation, but it should still be on the table at some point.
Here's a related question:
Wouldn't disincorporation into county-level administration (or not incorporating in the first place) serve as some sort of consolidation? That is, areas that are already not independent not making a move to change that, but to rather serve as one of many discrete suburbs without municipal government entirely. (This is I think why residents in Arden have resisted becoming their own city instead of remaining a part of Sacramento County's unincorporated area)
http://www.state.nj.us/education/data/fact.htm
The list is here (apparently there were 26 non-ops until 2009!): http://www.state.nj.us/education/news/2009/0701nonops.htm
Quote from: Brandon on February 09, 2015, 02:29:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 09, 2015, 12:28:41 PM
Wisconsin leads the USA - all 50 states - in the number of separate units of local government with taxing authority per-capita. Illinois has the highest raw number of such munis while Hawaii has the lowest.
You sure about that? Have you taken into account all the sewerage districts, fire protection districts, school districts (including community colleges), library districts, and mosquito abatement districts in Illinois? Yes, I said mosquito abatement districts.
Number of Government Units by State in 2002:
Illinois: 6,904
Pennsylvania: 5,032
Texas: 4,785
California: 4,410
Kansas: 3,888
Ohio: 3,637
Minnesota: 3,483
Missouri: 3,423
New York: 3,421
Indiana: 3,086
Wisconsin: 3,049
[...]
Nevada: 211
Rhode Island: 119
Hawaii: 20
District of Columbia: 2
Source: US Census Bureau, Census of Governments, 2002, vol. 1, p. 1 (https://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/gc021x1.pdf)
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2015, 07:07:04 PM
Quote from: admtrap on February 09, 2015, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2015, 12:41:51 PM
California's an interesting case in that much of the annexation/consolidation rush for municipalities died down after the 1960s, but by then, many independent suburbs had been established with little desire to lose their own identity (i.e. suburbs in metro Los Angeles that exist primarily to resist annexation by LA itself, such as Burbank). San Diego did shoestring annex San Ysidro in 1957, and Chula Vista annexed the community of Montgomery (named after the nearby freeway?) in the 1980s.
There's some justification for some of these suburbs to merge with one another, however. Maywood outsourced essentially everything but it's council. Neighboring Bell had the nice little corruption scandal. Neighboring Vernon had one too. Tiny Bell Gardens, Cudahy and Huntington Park haven't had any scandals themselves, but why not? Put those six together, and you have one contiguous city of about 175,000 people covering about 16 square miles (a little bit bigger than nearby Downey), with a fair mix of residential and commercial.
Vernon managed to bribe its way out of forced disincorporation, but it should still be on the table at some point.
Here's a related question:
Wouldn't disincorporation into county-level administration (or not incorporating in the first place) serve as some sort of consolidation? That is, areas that are already not independent not making a move to change that, but to rather serve as one of many discrete suburbs without municipal government entirely. (This is I think why residents in Arden have resisted becoming their own city instead of remaining a part of Sacramento County's unincorporated area)
It does, but the reason for incorporation is often to resist annexation by a neighboring city. Just had that happen with Sunset Beach a few years ago, which got gobbled up by Huntington Beach. Desirable areas (which Vernon would count as due to its solid tax base and very low number of residents to consume services) would be prime annexation targets - Los Angeles probably would have moved to start annexing Vernon within seconds of its disincorporation, had it happened. As would all of its other neighbors, probably.
Arden and Sunset Beach are both good examples of tax policy driving incorporation and annexation. Arden rejected the idea of annexation because it feared its taxes would go up if it did so. Sunset Beach unsuccessfully resisted annexation because of the same reason - it feared a tax increase would be the result of its annexation - to the point that it tried to incorporate itself as a separate city (which would have been Orange County's smallest) instead.
In New Jersey, local school districts should be merged into county-wide dictricts.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 10, 2015, 02:02:46 PM
In New Jersey, local school districts should be merged into county-wide dictricts.
This is where you might run into the most opposition of all. We're talking about counties of half a million to a million that have some excellent (and some very bad) school systems. The residents of the former are not going to just roll over and be folded in with the latter.
Can you imagine Cherry Hill and Collingswood agreeing to be part of a school district with Camden? Essex Fells agreeing to join in with Newark? The lawyers live in the former towns. It won't happen.
School districts were one of the primary causes of "boroughitis" (the 1890s explosion of municipal fragmentation in New Jersey). Poor farmers didn't want higher taxes to pay for burgeoning school, light, water, etc. districts in growing villages in their townships. Ironically, many of the seceded areas grew urbanized, duplicated those districts, and helped create the epidemic of bureaucracy New Jersey has today.
A friend of mine proposed an idea to me that I'll forward to you all and see if it makes sense:
Why have Detroit "annex" Oakland and Macomb Counties (as well as the rest of Wayne County) in Michigan? Create an NYC style borough system where Oakland, Macomb and Wayne become boroughs of Detroit. It would allow Detroit to capture tax revenue from its very affluent suburbs and might actually help the city.
I don't know enough about the Detroit area to comment either way but it seemed like an interesting thought.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Milford should get with the times and merge with New Milford.
"Old and Busted Milford" :-)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned all those notorious tiny "Mayor's Court" towns littering Ohio, some of which are a bit shady. The state government has been working to take power from some of them, such as Linndale, just outside of Cleveland, which makes the majority of its revenue from a speed trap on I-71 (that cuts through a few hundred feet of the town and has no direct exit), as well as on the main through street of the town itself. Then there's the notorious example of New Rome, which had been run like a family fiefdom for decades with scant few municipal elections and a poorly qualified police force that would pull over and ticket passing motorists for ridiculous violations such as dirty tail lights. Thankfully, the state dissolved the town entirely a few years back after many years of internal corruption and turned it over to the neighboring township.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 11, 2015, 08:05:04 AM
A friend of mine proposed an idea to me that I'll forward to you all and see if it makes sense:
Why have Detroit "annex" Oakland and Macomb Counties (as well as the rest of Wayne County) in Michigan? Create an NYC style borough system where Oakland, Macomb and Wayne become boroughs of Detroit. It would allow Detroit to capture tax revenue from its very affluent suburbs and might actually help the city.
I don't know enough about the Detroit area to comment either way but it seemed like an interesting thought.
I can't imagine Detroit having any kind of power to do that. The city is very weak and completely broke. And nobody in the neighboring suburbs would go along with that - they'd merely up and move farther away as opposed to living in the Detroit city limits.
Quote from: FightingIrish on February 11, 2015, 12:33:27 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 11, 2015, 08:05:04 AM
A friend of mine proposed an idea to me that I'll forward to you all and see if it makes sense:
Why have Detroit "annex" Oakland and Macomb Counties (as well as the rest of Wayne County) in Michigan? Create an NYC style borough system where Oakland, Macomb and Wayne become boroughs of Detroit. It would allow Detroit to capture tax revenue from its very affluent suburbs and might actually help the city.
I don't know enough about the Detroit area to comment either way but it seemed like an interesting thought.
I can't imagine Detroit having any kind of power to do that. The city is very weak and completely broke. And nobody in the neighboring suburbs would go along with that - they'd merely up and move farther away as opposed to living in the Detroit city limits.
If I lived in the city of Detroit, I wouldn't want it. Isn't this what's ruined Toronto?
The central cities have as much of a right to self-rule as everyone else.
Quote from: FightingIrish on February 11, 2015, 12:28:58 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned all those notorious tiny "Mayor's Court" towns littering Ohio, some of which are a bit shady. The state government has been working to take power from some of them, such as Linndale, just outside of Cleveland, which makes the majority of its revenue from a speed trap on I-71 (that cuts through a few hundred feet of the town and has no direct exit), as well as on the main through street of the town itself. Then there's the notorious example of New Rome, which had been run like a family fiefdom for decades with scant few municipal elections and a poorly qualified police force that would pull over and ticket passing motorists for ridiculous violations such as dirty tail lights. Thankfully, the state dissolved the town entirely a few years back after many years of internal corruption and turned it over to the neighboring township.
Isn't this similar to the New York village courts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/nyregion/25courts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
QuoteSome of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge's bench or jury box. Sometimes the public is not admitted, witnesses are not sworn to tell the truth, and there is no word-for-word record of the proceedings.
Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many – truck drivers, sewer workers or laborers – have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles. Some never got through high school, and at least one went no further than grade school.
...
The examination found overwhelming evidence that decade after decade and up to this day, people have often been denied fundamental legal rights. Defendants have been jailed illegally. Others have been subjected to racial and sexual bigotry so explicit it seems to come from some other place and time. People have been denied the right to a trial, an impartial judge and the presumption of innocence.
In 2003 alone, justices disciplined by the state included one in Montgomery County who had closed his court to the public and let prosecutors run the proceedings during 20 years in office. Another, in Westchester County, had warned the police not to arrest his political cronies for drunken driving, and asked a Lebanese-American with a parking ticket if she was a terrorist. A third, in Delaware County, had been convicted of having sex with a mentally retarded woman in his care.
In WV, cities and towns abuse citizens in several ways.
- Starting a few years ago our Supreme Court misread an obscure law to allow cities to charge a "user fee" (income tax) to non-residents. The cities, of course, proceded to waste the money and have never shown what any non-resident actually "uses" in the city.
- Then, rather than simply repealing the law in question, the Legislature granted "home rule" to these cities, in return for promising to eliminate the income tax and the longstanding "B&O tax", which was a business income tax on the gross, not net. This caused the cities to add a sales tax and forget about their promises relative to the other taxes.
- The net effect of these has been to end all further annexiations. No individual or citizen is going to volunteer to be incorporated into a city. Growth, in the few places that are growing, is in unincorporated suburbs with county based services.
- Smaller towns are pretty much just speed traps. WV allows towns to hire cops with no training what so ever, and then get on the 2 year waiting list to attend the academy (at town expense). When Barney gets to the top of the list, the town fires him and he moves to the next town and the cop in that town moves to the other. No ability to do anything but random tax. "Judges" are non-lawyer city workers without any legal training or ethics.
- In WV cities do virtually nothing for the citizen. Most water and sewer services are handled by either PSDs or by for-profit companies, as are most garbage service. Schools are a county based system. Serious useful police work is done by the county sheriff or the state police. Roads, carrying a number (and a vast majority of city streets carry a number) are 100% state DOH responsibility. EMS services are either for-profit or county based, mostly. Fire departments are often city based, but counties can set up paid departments too and many have and they do the same job. Cities do virtually nothing for people but take their money.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 12, 2015, 11:17:40 AMCities do virtually nothing for people but take their money.
This is what counties in northern Kentucky have become. That's why I think cities in Kentucky should be allowed to secede from the county if certain criteria are met. To be able to secede, a city should be above a certain population level, and have most of its population residing in a high-density area.
IMO, Rhode Island is one of those places that should go full steam ahead with municipal amalgamation, considering the state of things here. Probably go for the regional municipality concept in this case, too, as in several other areas in Canada.
What about West Sacramento in Yolo County and Sacramento city in Sacramento County
Theres South San Francisco in San Mateo County but San Francisco in City/County.
How often does a name of a city is in different counties. But I am surprised that they never considered being consolidated or annexed by the main cities.
I'm surprised that Piedmont and Alameda city was never Annexed by Oakland.
Also American Canyon I'm surprised that Vallejo or Napa never annexed that area.
Another factor Suisun city and Fairfield are officially separate cities but never merged.
But then again there had to be data saying that all these moves are bad economically.
Quote from: bing101 on February 12, 2015, 06:15:54 PM
What about West Sacramento in Yolo County and Sacramento city in Sacramento County
Theres South San Francisco in San Mateo County but San Francisco in City/County.
How often does a name of a city is in different counties. But I am surprised that they never considered being consolidated or annexed by the main cities.
I'm surprised that Piedmont and Alameda city was never Annexed by Oakland.
Also American Canyon I'm surprised that Vallejo or Napa never annexed that area.
Another factor Suisun city and Fairfield are officially separate cities but never merged.
But then again there had to be data saying that all these moves are bad economically.
I'm sure many of those cities were offered the opportunity to annex, but turned it down, due to the desire to remain autonomous.
In California, the 19th century legislature wanted to be sure San Francisco wasn't too powerful compared to the rest of the state. So they split San Mateo County off from San Francisco County, and made a law that a city can't cross county lines.
Quote from: kkt on February 17, 2015, 10:16:56 AM
In California, the 19th century legislature wanted to be sure San Francisco wasn't too powerful compared to the rest of the state. So they split San Mateo County off from San Francisco County, and made a law that a city can't cross county lines.
I find that hilarious given the size of counties in SoCal. :D
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 17, 2015, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 17, 2015, 10:16:56 AM
In California, the 19th century legislature wanted to be sure San Francisco wasn't too powerful compared to the rest of the state. So they split San Mateo County off from San Francisco County, and made a law that a city can't cross county lines.
I find that hilarious given the size of counties in SoCal. :D
Yeah. Back then, I think the biggest community in SoCal was San Pedro, which was all about shipping animal hides.
As a result of Unigov, Beech Grove, Speedway, Southport, Cumberland and Lawrence (and a few other random areas) are all not a part of Indianapolis. Personally I think at least Southport and Lawrence should be a part of Indianapolis, Lawrence is a downtownless area of Marion county that no one even notices isn't part of Indy proper, the same can be said of Southport. Avon should also be part of Indianapolis, another downtownless suburb, but I believe can't ever happen because Indianapolis cannot annex outside of Marion County as a stipulation of Unigov.
Quote from: bing101 on February 18, 2015, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 17, 2015, 10:16:56 AM
In California, the 19th century legislature wanted to be sure San Francisco wasn't too powerful compared to the rest of the state. So they split San Mateo County off from San Francisco County, and made a law that a city can't cross county lines.
Well today San Jose is a powerful city in Northern California.
Wait was this law about San Francisco enacted around the time the State Capital moved to Sacramento. I remember there was a story of Benicia was the Capital of California.
Capitols:
San Jose Nov. 1849-May 1851.
Vallejo Jan. 1852-Feb. 1853, except temporarily in Sacramento Jan.-May 1852.
Benicia Feb. 1853-Feb. 1854.
Sacramento Feb. 1854-present, except temporarily in San Francisco in 1862 due to flooding in Sacto.
San Mateo County was split from S.F. in 1856
Quote from: bing101 on February 12, 2015, 06:15:54 PM
Theres South San Francisco in San Mateo County but San Francisco in City/County.
South San Francisco does not even border San Francisco and was founded decades after San Mateo County split off from San Francisco County.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 18, 2015, 12:40:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 12, 2015, 06:15:54 PM
Theres South San Francisco in San Mateo County but San Francisco in City/County.
South San Francisco does not even border San Francisco and was founded decades after San Mateo County split off from San Francisco County.
True Brisbane, CA, Daly City, CA do border San Francisco.