With RTP's massive mixed use development currently under construction, and Apple planning to build offices along Davis Drive, I feel like it should be a good time that the RTP should become its own city/county. It shouldn't be a part of Durham or Raleigh.
https://kdc.com/our-work/hub-rtp
https://wraltechwire.com/2021/12/08/apple-making-big-impact-in-the-triangle-before-it-even-arrives/
No. Cities should not be entirely owned by companies.
The cities of Raleigh and Durham are going to lose tax money if the huge office buildings split off, and the tax money that goes to the new city consisting of just RTP will be used only on RTP, meaning it will be used much less efficiently.
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2022, 10:26:41 AM
No. Cities should not be entirely owned by companies.
The cities of Raleigh and Durham are going to lose tax money if the huge office buildings split off, and the tax money that goes to the new city consisting of just RTP will be used only on RTP, meaning it will be used much less efficiently.
I see now. And there was discussion about this on another forum as well.
I can see reasonable cause to break up some of the gigantic counties in California and Arizona into smaller units; particularly in SoCal and greater Phoenix. A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county.
And don't get me started on San Bernardino County. That might have made sense in 1890, but in the 21st Century, it's ridiculous to have a single county from metro LA to the Nevada border.
My reasons are a bit selfish. It would make for more uniform detail when displaying county-level data for the whole country on a map. :P
So something like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
So in other words, something like the town of Whittier, Alaska? The entire population lives inside of one building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittier,_Alaska
The only reason why it would ever be necessary is for political purposes, such as if there is a portion of the county that is the polar opposite of another section of the county, and that section doesn't want to be subject to the actions of the controlling party. Much like people upstate who want to secede from the NY Metro controlled government, most of CA who doesn't want to be controlled by LA and San Fran, etc.
I think we could actually use fewer counties and municipalities. There's no reason the Oklahoma panhandle needs three separate counties; one would do. And a lot of the tiny municipalities you find in large metros can go. They tend to breed corrupt city governments because they don't have the oversight that larger cities do. Valley Brook, OK is a perfect example of a municipality that should be legislated out of existence.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 19, 2022, 02:34:50 PM
I think we could actually use fewer counties and municipalities. There's no reason the Oklahoma panhandle needs three separate counties; one would do. And a lot of the tiny municipalities you find in large metros can go. They tend to breed corrupt city governments because they don't have the oversight that larger cities do. Valley Brook, OK is a perfect example of a municipality that should be legislated out of existence.
How about having certain counties require that every square inch be incorporated to avoid 1. tiny towns and 2. ridiculous borders? Think of the way it is in New England, New Jersey, and New York. (I've always wondered what Delaware would be like if it used this system.)
I don't see how that would solve anything. Valley Brook is incorporated; that's the problem. If it were just an unincorporated patch of land in the middle of OKC limits they couldn't have a police department hassling people or a city council profiting off of that.
A lot of Seattle suburbs were incorporated in the 1990s and 2000s after a state push to either become cities or get annexed into others. A few of them definitely need to be merged together, as they're pointlessly small and hinder regional development.
On the other hand, we still have pockets of unincorporated but already developed areas that could become their own cities. Tens of thousands without a proper local government makes for awkward development patterns.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 19, 2022, 11:21:55 AM
I can see reasonable cause to break up some of the gigantic counties in California and Arizona into smaller units; particularly in SoCal and greater Phoenix. A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county.
And don't get me started on San Bernardino County. That might have made sense in 1890, but in the 21st Century, it's ridiculous to have a single county from metro LA to the Nevada border.
My reasons are a bit selfish. It would make for more uniform detail when displaying county-level data for the whole country on a map. :P
Needles is a great place to start why San Bernardino County ought to be split up. Even using the San Bernardino Mountains as a boundary point would help immensely. I would place Barstow as a the County Seat given it has a direct line to places like Needles and Baker.
Quote from: Bruce on February 19, 2022, 03:48:12 PM
A lot of Seattle suburbs were incorporated in the 1990s and 2000s after a state push to either become cities or get annexed into others. A few of them definitely need to be merged together, as they're pointlessly small and hinder regional development.
On the other hand, we still have pockets of unincorporated but already developed areas that could become their own cities. Tens of thousands without a proper local government makes for awkward development patterns.
Sounds like a New England-style model would fix both problems.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 19, 2022, 11:21:55 AM
I can see reasonable cause to break up some of the gigantic counties in California and Arizona into smaller units; particularly in SoCal and greater Phoenix. A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county.
And don't get me started on San Bernardino County. That might have made sense in 1890, but in the 21st Century, it's ridiculous to have a single county from metro LA to the Nevada border.
My reasons are a bit selfish. It would make for more uniform detail when displaying county-level data for the whole country on a map. :P
I remember counting the population of metro areas each x0 interstate serves in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29772.msg2638238#msg2638238) a while back, and so many replies were asking why I counted San Bernardino County as part of I-40, when I'm just going off official figures. So yea, a split of San Bernardino County (and the metro area) to not include I-40 would be great.
I'm also of the mind that we should have as few local governments in each metro area (from county on down) as possible. For example, the way that I see it,the biggest root cause of the societal problems that are affecting the Milwaukee, WI metro area are due to the fact that so few of the metro area's residents are eligible to vote in elections for mayor and city council - because they don't live in the city. The area's entire local politic would be substantially different if the entire metro area was one city. Repeat that in pretty much every metro area in the country.
Call it the 'suburbs taking over the city' if you may, but yes, nearly every state needs a serious top to bottom rethink of its local governmental structure. the 20th century was not kind to those states. OTOH, I don't see that happening until EVERYONE who is alive and aware today (especially the Baby Boomers and early Gen Xers) has passed on, and those born and becoming aware after at least the 2030s, start taking over the reins of state level politics - and start asking serious questions about the local governance structures that were left behind from the 20th century (thus, likely not until at least the 2080s or later (ie, 2100 and beyond).
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2022, 11:23:07 AM
I'm also of the mind that we should have as few local governments in each metro area (from county on down) as possible. For example, the way that I see it,the biggest root cause of the societal problems that are affecting the Milwaukee, WI metro area are due to the fact that so few of the metro area's residents are eligible to vote in elections for mayor and city council - because they don't live in the city. The area's entire local politic would be substantially different if the entire metro area was one city. Repeat that in pretty much every metro area in the country.
Call it the 'suburbs taking over the city' if you may, but yes, nearly every state needs a serious top to bottom rethink of its local governmental structure. the 20th century was not kind to those states. OTOH, I don't see that happening until EVERYONE who is alive and aware today (especially the Baby Boomers and early Gen Xers) has passed on, and those born and becoming aware after at least the 2030s, start taking over the reins of state level politics - and start asking serious questions about the local governance structures that were left behind from the 20th century (thus, likely not until at least the 2080s or later (ie, 2100 are beyond).
Mike
Metro areas are subdivided for a reason. In Massachusetts, Lawrence is majority Hispanic, and Lowell has a sizable Cambodian section. Boxford is almost entirely rural. Lexington and Salem are huge tourist attractions. Many of the towns on the coast have large fishing industries. They absolutely cannot be lumped into one city. They need people who know the local area.
I remember a political cartoon I saw a few years ago. A Detroit councilman is driving in his car past urban decay and says, "Sure, it's a hellhole. But it's OUR hellhole."
Many people want politics to stay as local as possible, even if that means not cooperating with their neighboring governments.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2022, 11:26:32 AM
I'm also of the mind that we should have as few local governments in each metro area (from county on down) as possible. For example, the way that I see it,the biggest root cause of the societal problems that are affecting the Milwaukee, WI metro area are due to the fact that so few of the metro area's residents are eligible to vote in elections for mayor and city council - because they don't live in the city. The area's entire local politic would be substantially different if the entire metro area was one city. Repeat that in pretty much every metro area in the country.
Call it the 'suburbs taking over the city' if you may, but yes, nearly every state needs a serious top to bottom rethink of its local governmental structure. the 20th century was not kind to those states. OTOH, I don't see that happening until EVERYONE who is alive and aware today (especially the Baby Boomers and early Gen Xers) has passed on, and those born and becoming aware after at least the 2030s, start taking over the reins of state level politics - and start asking serious questions about the local governance structures that were left behind from the 20th century (thus, likely not until at least the 2080s or later (ie, 2100 and beyond).
Mike
As I recall the first time you posited on here that Milwaukee's suburbs need to have more say in Milwaukee city policy, someone asked how you would feel if people who don't live in Appleton were given a say in Appleton issues, and you never responded to that. My guess is you would make an excuse about why Appleton does not need outsiders influencing local policies while Milwaukee does.
Living in Minnesota where a certain political party has similar designs on "cracking down" on the metro, I can say from experience that while both political parties are bad regarding only respecting local control if "local control" lines up with things they approve of, one party is far worse about this than the other.
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2022, 10:26:41 AM
No. Cities should not be entirely owned by companies.
The cities of Raleigh and Durham are going to lose tax money if the huge office buildings split off, and the tax money that goes to the new city consisting of just RTP will be used only on RTP, meaning it will be used much less efficiently.
If most of the RTP is in Durham County, how did Raleigh/Wake County benefit more than Durham?
Quote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2022, 11:26:32 AM
I'm also of the mind that we should have as few local governments in each metro area (from county on down) as possible.
Hawaii has no local governments below the county level, and only five counties. You might think that would make Hawaii a paragon of governmental effectiveness and efficiency. You would be very, very wrong.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 19, 2022, 11:21:55 AM
I can see reasonable cause to break up some of the gigantic counties in California and Arizona into smaller units; particularly in SoCal and greater Phoenix. A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county.
Maricopa County (4.42 million people) has roughly 62% of Arizona's 7.15M population.
A proposal was made in the State Legislature last week to split Maricopa County into four separate counties -- roughly the City of Phoenix, the north and northeast valley (Scottsdale, Carefree), the southeast valley (Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert), and the mostly-rural west valley (Glendale and all points west). It will go nowhere. It's strictly a political ploy by Republican Party leadership to punish the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for not following party orders and making sure Trump won the county and the state.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on February 21, 2022, 08:36:30 PM
It will go nowhere. It's strictly a political ploy by Republican Party leadership to punish the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for not following party orders and making sure Trump won the county and the state.
They're in control – what makes you think it has no chance of passing?
Quote from: 1 on February 21, 2022, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on February 21, 2022, 08:36:30 PM
It will go nowhere. It's strictly a political ploy by Republican Party leadership to punish the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for not following party orders and making sure Trump won the county and the state.
They're in control – what makes you think it has no chance of passing?
It's only happened once since statehood in 1912. LaPaz County was split off from Yuma County in 1983. There was also a proposal to split off Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert into their own county in the mid 1990s, but it went nowhere.
Also, the House of Representatives is led by one of the few remaining sane Republicans, Rusty Bowers (R-District 25), who'll make sure this never sees the light of day. He alone assigns bills to committees, and he's quashed several Trump-friendly bills already.
Unfortunately, he's term-limited out of the House, and is running for the State Senate in the new District 10. Even more unfortunately, he has an opponent that is also a Mormon Republican, but is a Trump supporter. Given that most LDS members in Mesa are solidly in the Trump camp, despite church opposition, Bowers has little chance of making it out of the primary. I live in Bowers' district, so I've been following this story closely.
For the record, I'm not totally against dividing up our extremely large counties, if the reasons are legit. But this is a desperate move by the AZGQP (a party that is effectively in open rebellion against the United States Government, as are most of its elected officials) to divide and conquer. Not a reason to split Maricopa County.
Discussion of individual politicians or political parties and their motivations is beyond the remit of this forum.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2022, 09:39:06 PM
Discussion of individual politicians or political parties and their motivations is beyond the remit of this forum.
My apologies. No harm intended, but it is germane to the discussion. But if you remove my post, I understand.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 21, 2022, 05:43:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2022, 10:26:41 AM
No. Cities should not be entirely owned by companies.
The cities of Raleigh and Durham are going to lose tax money if the huge office buildings split off, and the tax money that goes to the new city consisting of just RTP will be used only on RTP, meaning it will be used much less efficiently.
If most of the RTP is in Durham County, how did Raleigh/Wake County benefit more than Durham?
I would be OK with the entire Fox Cities metro area (Neenah to Kaukauna, Sherwood through Greenville and west to the Winchester area) being amalgamated into a single 'City of Fox Valley'. No one existing muni would control more than just over a third of the resulting city's city council.
Mike
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 19, 2022, 11:21:55 AM
I can see reasonable cause to break up some of the gigantic counties in California and Arizona into smaller units; particularly in SoCal and greater Phoenix. A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county.
And don't get me started on San Bernardino County. That might have made sense in 1890, but in the 21st Century, it's ridiculous to have a single county from metro LA to the Nevada border.
My reasons are a bit selfish. It would make for more uniform detail when displaying county-level data for the whole country on a map. :P
"A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county." I think this should depend on the population distribution. If that 40% of the population is all part of the same urbanized or metropolitan area (the definition of urbanized is based on development patterns, the definition of metropolitan is based on work commute patterns), then it's acceptable for that area to all be one county. They could split up if they wish, but it's still legitimate if it's one area and it doesn't split.
Quote from: 1 on February 20, 2022, 11:33:57 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2022, 11:23:07 AM
I'm also of the mind that we should have as few local governments in each metro area (from county on down) as possible. For example, the way that I see it,the biggest root cause of the societal problems that are affecting the Milwaukee, WI metro area are due to the fact that so few of the metro area's residents are eligible to vote in elections for mayor and city council - because they don't live in the city. The area's entire local politic would be substantially different if the entire metro area was one city. Repeat that in pretty much every metro area in the country.
Call it the 'suburbs taking over the city' if you may, but yes, nearly every state needs a serious top to bottom rethink of its local governmental structure. the 20th century was not kind to those states. OTOH, I don't see that happening until EVERYONE who is alive and aware today (especially the Baby Boomers and early Gen Xers) has passed on, and those born and becoming aware after at least the 2030s, start taking over the reins of state level politics - and start asking serious questions about the local governance structures that were left behind from the 20th century (thus, likely not until at least the 2080s or later (ie, 2100 are beyond).
Mike
Metro areas are subdivided for a reason. In Massachusetts, Lawrence is majority Hispanic, and Lowell has a sizable Cambodian section. Boxford is almost entirely rural. Lexington and Salem are huge tourist attractions. Many of the towns on the coast have large fishing industries. They absolutely cannot be lumped into one city. They need people who know the local area.
I think this is putting the cart before the horse, those areas didn't split *because* of the different ethnicities, the different towns/etc already existed before Hispanic/Cambodian/etc immigration.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 22, 2022, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 19, 2022, 11:21:55 AM
I can see reasonable cause to break up some of the gigantic counties in California and Arizona into smaller units; particularly in SoCal and greater Phoenix. A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county.
And don't get me started on San Bernardino County. That might have made sense in 1890, but in the 21st Century, it's ridiculous to have a single county from metro LA to the Nevada border.
My reasons are a bit selfish. It would make for more uniform detail when displaying county-level data for the whole country on a map. :P
"A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county." I think this should depend on the population distribution. If that 40% of the population is all part of the same urbanized or metropolitan area (the definition of urbanized is based on development patterns, the definition of metropolitan is based on work commute patterns), then it's acceptable for that area to all be one county. They could split up if they wish, but it's still legitimate if it's one area and it doesn't split.
Just for some way worse than Arizona:
Nevada Population - 3,104,614; Clark County Population - 2,265,461. Percentage - 72.9%
Hawai'i Population - 1,455,271; Honolulu County Population - 1,016,508. Percentage - 69.9%
Quote from: mgk920 on February 22, 2022, 12:31:36 PM
If most of the RTP is in Durham County, how did Raleigh/Wake County benefit more than Durham?
Not sure if you can say that Durham hasn't benefited as much as Raleigh. In the past 20 years, downtown Durham has more than doubled in size and the city itself has grown from 187K to 283.5K (51.6% increase). During the same period, Durham County has grown from 223,314 to 324,833 (45.5% increase) and growth-reluctant Orange County has grown from 118,227 to 149,013 (26.0% increase). In that same timeframe, Durham has been blessed with a triple-A baseball club, a major-league theatrical venue and several large commercial developments/redevelopments. Also, keep in mind that rush hour flows backwards here, with much higher traffic density from Raleigh to Durham during the morning rush.
Unfortunately for Durham, the highway system fanning out from Research Triangle Park favors growth in Wake and Chatham counties. By 2000, property values in southern Durham (particularly in Woodcroft and Hope Valley) was already sky-high and the remaining lands in southern Durham are tightly restricted due to proximity to the Jordan Lake reservoir. Adjacent land in western Wake, southern Wake and eastern Chatham were wide open spaces ripe for development. Additionally, there is a strong cache for properties "inside the Beltline" as many newcomers to RTP enjoy the lifestyle in the laid back City of Oaks. It is no wonder that population has increased even more in those areas.
Because I was bored, I made a spreadsheet showing the percentage of each state's population in its largest county using 2020 data:
(https://i.imgur.com/63RAy9p.png)
Unsurprisingly, the big ones are all in states with fewer, larger counties, especially when they're big enough to include all of a large metropolitan area.
Places that grew earlier generally have smaller counties because splitting counties when populations got big enough used to be a more common practice that largely died out by the early 1900s or so. You can see this looking at county size patterns in a lot of western states - for example, it's no coincidence that the smallest counties in Nevada are in the Reno/Carson City area, which was the first population center in the state. Las Vegas is far bigger today, but it grew too late to get caught up in any county-splitting. California is similar - I bet if LA/SoCal had grown earlier, the Antelope Valley and the San Fernando Valley easily could have been their own counties, and San Bernardino would probably be split at Cajon Pass.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2022, 11:26:32 AM
I'm also of the mind that we should have as few local governments in each metro area (from county on down) as possible. For example, the way that I see it,the biggest root cause of the societal problems that are affecting the Milwaukee, WI metro area are due to the fact that so few of the metro area's residents are eligible to vote in elections for mayor and city council - because they don't live in the city. The area's entire local politic would be substantially different if the entire metro area was one city. Repeat that in pretty much every metro area in the country.
Yeah, but one sees basically the same dynamic in major cities that do cover a more substantial part of the the metropolitan population. Some of those city-county merger places like Indy, Jacksonville or Nashville. Or like Columbus where the city itself is still growing into suburbia and the city proper represents a much larger proportion of the population compared to places like Milwaukee or Minneapolis. They all have about the same socio-political economic dynamic.
Although the last several years have got me thinking this country could use a little more purple. Forcing cities and suburbs together might help weed out the wingnuts. We gotta lotta kooks coming out the woodwork because they only have to win primaries.
Or it will just turn them into one large dysfunctional unit rather than dozens of dysfunctional units squabbling amongst themselves.
Quote from: US 89 on February 22, 2022, 02:42:03 PM
Because I was bored, I made a spreadsheet showing the percentage of each state's population in its largest county using 2020 data:
[img snipped]
Unsurprisingly, the big ones are all in states with fewer, larger counties, especially when they're big enough to include all of a large metropolitan area.
New York is interesting because NYC is, of course, comprised of five counties. So it would be close to #1 if looking at the largest city, but it's near the bottom of the list when looking at the largest county.
Delaware also feels way too high at #5... but then again, there's only 3 counties, so it's mathematically eliminated from being any lower than #9 :-D
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2022, 05:17:04 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 19, 2022, 11:21:55 AM
I can see reasonable cause to break up some of the gigantic counties in California and Arizona into smaller units; particularly in SoCal and greater Phoenix. A state the size of Arizona shouldn't have like 40% of its population in one county.
And don't get me started on San Bernardino County. That might have made sense in 1890, but in the 21st Century, it's ridiculous to have a single county from metro LA to the Nevada border.
My reasons are a bit selfish. It would make for more uniform detail when displaying county-level data for the whole country on a map. :P
I remember counting the population of metro areas each x0 interstate serves in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29772.msg2638238#msg2638238) a while back, and so many replies were asking why I counted San Bernardino County as part of I-40, when I'm just going off official figures. So yea, a split of San Bernardino County (and the metro area) to not include I-40 would be great.
Honestly, most of the desert counties in So Cal could be redrawn. It's fine along the coast (at least not to the point of redrawing). But the large desert regions should be pulled out into their own counties. I live in Palm Springs; my county seat is Riverside. It's an hour away and there is over 90 minutes of driving to get to Blythe and the Colorado River.
As a rough first attempt I'd
- split Riverside County around Cabazon and down the San Jacinto Mountains ridge and again west of Chiriaco Summit
- split LA County at Acton and again at Edwards AFB/Rosamond
- split San Bernardino County at Cajon Pass and again between Victorville and Barstow
- merge the Colorado Valley areas in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties north to the Parker Dam into Imperial County (including desert junctions like Desert Center and Vidal Jct.)
- combine the areas of Palmdale/Lancaster and Victorville/Hesperia into a new county along the north side of the San Gabriel Mountains and south of Edwards AFB (I'll call it Edwards County for now)
- combine the north sections of LA and San Bernardino Counties - Mojave, Barstow, Needles - into a new county with Barstow as the county seat (I'll call it Mojave County). This could also include the SE corner of Kern County east of the CA 58/223 intersection.
- create a new county in the Coachella Valley (I'll call it Cahuilla County)
- Big Bear remains part of San Bernardino County
- Yucca Valley/ Joshua Tree/ 29 Palms chooses to be part of San Bernardino, Mojave, or Cahuilla County (there's good reasons for each)
This adds three new counties to California. But we're talking about huge counties containing millions of people with residents who may live hours from the county seat (and that's in good traffic!). The county breaks are in logical places with few, if any, residents.
Someone had a website about 20 years ago that showed their proposals for forming new counties. I think there were some in California, and maybe one in Long Island. I think there was one in Iowa (or maybe Kansas) whose only purpose was to pare it down to the size and shape of surrounding rectangular counties.
I'm in Campbell County, Ky., which isn't that big in land area, but shows why we can't just consolidate cities and counties. For a long time, each end of the county had opposing political interests. The northern half had more blue-collar, fiscally liberal types. The southern half was ultraconservative. Over the past couple years, I think it's become a little more unified against all the madness (as a lot of places have), but individual cities and communities have often been very different from each other.
Counties have become much less important to electoral politics since the Supreme Court ruled that state senates allocating senators by county lines, rather than equal-population districts, was unconstitutional.
This is compounded by the fact that nowadays swing counties tend to be clustered near cities, and the politics of rural areas throughout the country have become practically uniform. You could swap some random rural county in Oklahoma for one in Kentucky and nobody would probably even notice other than the cannabis businesses.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 01:30:37 AM
Counties have become much less important to electoral politics since the Supreme Court ruled that state senates allocating senators by county lines, rather than equal-population districts, was unconstitutional.
That must have been quite a while ago. Were U.S. Senators still not elected by the public back then? :D
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2022, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 01:30:37 AM
Counties have become much less important to electoral politics since the Supreme Court ruled that state senates allocating senators by county lines, rather than equal-population districts, was unconstitutional.
That must have been quite a while ago. Were U.S. Senators still not elected by the public back then? :D
IIRC, the USSupremes' 'one man one vote' ruling was in the 1950s (the US Senate is the only elected legislative body in the USA with districts that are not apportioned by population. It's why county boards in Wisconsin are so ridiculously large - before that USSupreme Court ruling, each township board chairman was also on the county board in his county.
The 17th Amendment (direct election of US Senators) was ratified on 1913-04-08.
Mike
I do think less-populated counties should merge in order to save money on duplicate sheriff, judges, prosecutors, etc.
Ones I would merge in Indiana:
Ohio and Switzerland
Fayette and Union
Benton and Warren
Daviess and Martin
Crawford and Perry
Blackford and Jay
Pulaski and Starke
Jasper and Newton
Quote from: mgk920 on February 27, 2022, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2022, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 01:30:37 AM
Counties have become much less important to electoral politics since the Supreme Court ruled that state senates allocating senators by county lines, rather than equal-population districts, was unconstitutional.
That must have been quite a while ago. Were U.S. Senators still not elected by the public back then? :D
IIRC, the USSupremes' 'one man one vote' ruling was in the 1950s (the US Senate is the only elected legislative body in the USA with districts that are not apportioned by population.
Reynolds v. Sims, 1964.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 01:30:37 AM
Counties have become much less important to electoral politics since the Supreme Court ruled that state senates allocating senators by county lines, rather than equal-population districts, was unconstitutional.
Interesting, especially given that the Constitution bans such a practice for the US senate (mandating that each state have equal representation). What's the point of even having state senates, if they're just the exact same thing as state houses/assemblies but with bigger districts? I thought the point of a bicameral legislature is that the lower house represents the people while the upper house represents something else (lower political entities in the US, nobility in many other countries).
Right, it's kind of a glaring contradiction–if the Fourteenth Amendment is held to say each person's vote must be equal, then why is that same inequality then also allowed to be enshrined in the makeup of the U.S. Senate (and thus the Electoral College)? And indeed, in recent years, both the Senate and the Electoral College have become poster children for why Reynolds v. Sims was correctly decided.
As for what the purpose of the state senates are, the effect of bigger districts is that theoretically the members will have to be more moderate, since they represent a bigger constituency. (Doesn't really work out so well if increasing the size of districts just leads to a bigger collection of whackadoodle constituents, though.) And some state constitutions limit certain functions to the state senate that they don't grant to the lower house, much as the U.S. Senate has the sole power to approve Cabinet and judicial appointments and ratify treaties. However, I'm not really convinced the supposed benefits are all they're cracked up to be, and in most cases it seems like the two halves of the legislature are just copy-pastes of the same thing.
Nebraska actually abolished their lower house in 1934 to cut costs, and has operated with a unicameral legislature since then. It doesn't seem to cause many problems.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 02:46:23 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 27, 2022, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2022, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 01:30:37 AM
Counties have become much less important to electoral politics since the Supreme Court ruled that state senates allocating senators by county lines, rather than equal-population districts, was unconstitutional.
That must have been quite a while ago. Were U.S. Senators still not elected by the public back then? :D
[/quote[u[/u]]
IIRC, the USSupremes' 'one man one vote' ruling was in the 1950s (the US Senate is the only elected legislative body in the USA with districts that are not apportioned by population.
Reynolds v. Sims, 1964.
Also Wesberry v. Samders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)ZK
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 01:30:37 AM
Counties have become much less important to electoral politics since the Supreme Court ruled that state senates allocating senators by county lines, rather than equal-population districts, was unconstitutional.
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2022, 09:31:50 AM
That must have been quite a while ago. Were U.S. Senators still not elected by the public back then? :D
Quote from: mgk920 on February 27, 2022, 12:11:00 PM
IIRC, the USSupremes' 'one man one vote' ruling was in the 1950s (the US Senate is the only elected legislative body in the USA with districts that are not apportioned by population. It's why county boards in Wisconsin are so ridiculously large - before that USSupreme Court ruling, each township board chairman was also on the county board in his county.
The 17th Amendment (direct election of US Senators) was ratified on 1913-04-08.
Mike
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 27, 2022, 02:46:23 PM
Reynolds v. Sims, 1964.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 27, 2022, 05:17:44 PM
Also Wesberry v. Samders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)ZK
Hope I got those quotes correct. In
Reynolds v. Sims, the Alabama constitution required reapportionment of state districts every 10 years, which wasn't being done. In
Wesberry v. Sanders, folks in 5th Congressional District of Gerogia argued that their district was more than twice the size of the 9th District after reapportionment from the 1960 Census. Both of those are very clear-cut circumstances. These court cases may have been used as precedence in other more relevant legal cases, but neither appear to be directly related to the originator's concern that the United States Supreme Court has overturned the right of any/all states to have state senate districts based on county lines.
Vermont's state senate is still based on county lines.
Quote from: 1 on February 27, 2022, 07:31:53 PM
Vermont's state senate is still based on county lines.
No, it's not; it has districts just like any other state senate. They just name the districts after which county they best match up with instead of numbering them. The district boundaries change after each Census.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 27, 2022, 12:22:08 PM
I do think less-populated counties should merge in order to save money on duplicate sheriff, judges, prosecutors, etc.
Ones I would merge in Indiana:
Ohio and Switzerland
Fayette and Union
Benton and Warren
Daviess and Martin
Crawford and Perry
Blackford and Jay
Pulaski and Starke
Jasper and Newton
I feel the same with Mississippi. Issaquena (the least populated county east of the Mississippi River) could be merged with Sharkey.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2022, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 27, 2022, 07:31:53 PM
Vermont's state senate is still based on county lines.
No, it's not; it has districts just like any other state senate. They just name the districts after which county they best match up with instead of numbering them. The district boundaries change after each Census.
I think Maine's state senate seats are the same way.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 26, 2022, 11:46:53 PM
I'm in Campbell County, Ky., which isn't that big in land area, but shows why we can't just consolidate cities and counties. For a long time, each end of the county had opposing political interests. The northern half had more blue-collar, fiscally liberal types. The southern half was ultraconservative. Over the past couple years, I think it's become a little more unified against all the madness (as a lot of places have), but individual cities and communities have often been very different from each other.
This is a perfect example where city consolidation would be a good thing. I work for a construction company and we have to get (& pay for) business licenses in several Campbell (as well as Kenton and Boone) county municipalities in case we are awarded work in one of those locations. Even if you send up doing no work, you have to file an income tax return.
We also have to withhold earnings tax for each separate municipality we work in. I routinely file up to 15 quarterly income tax returns in multiple municipalities across two states. If we had consolidated county governments in both Ohio and Kentucky, I could reduce that to 4 (2 if Boone, Kenton, and Campbell became a single county, which will never happen).
Or get rid of municipal income taxes (that just sounds like a royal pain in the ass for any business that travels to the customer's job site).
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2022, 02:48:38 PM
Or get rid of municipal income taxes (that just sounds like a royal pain in the ass for any business that travels to the customer's job site).
I'd disagree with that - here in Ontario, municipalities cannot take income tax. Thus, they can only rely on property taxes, bylaw violations, and other creative ways... (e.g. Toronto used to have a vehicle registration tax at one point). I feel that municipalities here are at a disadvantage for that, as I feel that the services provided are not being adequately paid for using the existing means.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 27, 2022, 12:22:08 PM
I do think less-populated counties should merge in order to save money on duplicate sheriff, judges, prosecutors, etc.
Manitoba did that in 2015. Most municipalities whose populations had fallen below the 1000 minimums required for new municipalities, were forced into shotgun marriages with neighboring municipalities. The only exceptions were a few remote municipalities with no neighbors, and others with an unusual legal status. One of the latter survived despite a population of zero, even though it surrounded a city with well over 1000 residents.
The specific cost items you mention aren't relevant in Manitoba, or most anywhere else in Canada. The legal system is not tied to units of local government, but rather is usually a provincial/territorial function. In most provinces, outside the big cities local governments usually just arrange for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to cover their policing needs rather than hire their own sheriffs and police officers.
Quote from: andrepoiy on March 01, 2022, 12:07:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2022, 02:48:38 PM
Or get rid of municipal income taxes (that just sounds like a royal pain in the ass for any business that travels to the customer's job site).
I'd disagree with that - here in Ontario, municipalities cannot take income tax. Thus, they can only rely on property taxes, bylaw violations, and other creative ways... (e.g. Toronto used to have a vehicle registration tax at one point). I feel that municipalities here are at a disadvantage for that, as I feel that the services provided are not being adequately paid for using the existing means.
In Oklahoma, the primary means of funding city government is sales tax. Now, sales tax is obviously a regressive form of taxation, and carries all the implications of that fact. However, income tax is assessed in the United States in a totally ass-backward way. You don't get a tax bill from the government saying you owe so much. Instead you have to work out yourself what your tax should be, and then you send it into the government, and if your calculations were wrong the government penalizes you for it. Most people with more than the most basic tax situation have to hire an accountant to ensure the calculations are correct. This situation is kept this way because (of course) someone profits off the way we do it now, so they pay lots of cash to make sure it stays that way.
This means that municipal income taxes in the United States are far more burdensome to the taxpayer than they are in Canada. If you work in more than one jurisdiction (imagine you're, say, an independent plumber who travels from house to house repairing leaky pipes) you would have to keep detailed records of what transactions took place in which municipality and which county (since they can each have their own tax rates, and in Oklahoma a municipality can be in multiple counties), what the correct tax rates are for each, and what paperwork to file to who, in order to remain in compliance. And if you make a mistake you get fined or could even go to jail.
Of course, here in New England compared to the rest of the US counties are mostly remnants from colonial times.
The proverbial elephant in the room are schools and school districts. They represent a substantial (if not the most substantial single item in the budgets. School funding is a perennial issue, especially with shifting enrollments. And as we've seen in the last two years, any debate regarding schools brings out the mist passion in just about everyone involved with them.
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :yes:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:41:41 AM
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :yes:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Triangle_Park
The park is an unincorporated area, and state law prohibits municipalities from annexing areas within the park.
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2022, 11:43:39 AM
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:41:41 AM
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :no:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Triangle_Park
The park is an unincorporated area, and state law prohibits municipalities from annexing areas within the park.
Welp my theory has been proven wrong! :rolleyes:
If Greenville and Winterville merged, then it would be a huge game changer given that they are so close together. Some people call Winterville (South Greenville).
Just like how Rocky Mount merged with Battleboro.
As far as two house legislatures go, in my state we have 100 single member house districts, so 1.7M/100=17K people. So my house member is a guy in my community who I know and who lives with the same issues I live with. We have 17 dual member senate districts, so 1.7M/17=100K, so my two senators represent a broader and more diverse set of concerns.
As to the concept of too many counties, around here it is not the too big issue, it is the too small issue. As the coalfields have depopulated, the critical mass needed to provide services is not there anymore. In some other places, like the Potomac Highlands and the Little Kanawha Valley, it never was there. The legislature has tried to entice school boards (which are county based) to combine, but found few takers. Everyone wants to be their own little fife.
As to the original question, I cannot see why an research park should be a county.
I do like the Disney system.
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:41:41 AM
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :yes:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Having a post office and being a city/incorporated municipality are two very different and completely independent things.
Quote from: ran4sh on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 PM
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:41:41 AM
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :yes:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Having a post office and being a city/incorporated municipality are two very different and completely independent things.
Indeed, just because a place has a post office doesn't mean that it's a town...and not having a post office doesn't mean it's
not a town. Goldsby OK, where I grew up, has its own town government, mayor, fire department, etc. but mail goes through post office in neighboring Washington.
And sometimes the post office creates fictional towns for its own convenience. You can send mail to Shawnee Mission, Kansas, but if you go there you won't find any real-world city called Shawnee Mission. You can go to the city of Shawnee and the city of Mission, though (and I think a good number of other small cities, like Roeland Park and Fairway, might also be lumped in with "Shawnee Mission").
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2022, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 PM
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:41:41 AM
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :yes:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Having a post office and being a city/incorporated municipality are two very different and completely independent things.
Indeed, just because a place has a post office doesn't mean that it's a town...and not having a post office doesn't mean it's not a town. Goldsby OK, where I grew up, has its own town government, mayor, fire department, etc. but mail goes through post office in neighboring Washington.
And sometimes the post office creates fictional towns for its own convenience. You can send mail to Shawnee Mission, Kansas, but if you go there you won't find any real-world city called Shawnee Mission. You can go to the city of Shawnee and the city of Mission, though (and I think a good number of other small cities, like Roeland Park and Fairway, might also be lumped in with "Shawnee Mission").
Very true. Notre Dame CDP has its own post office, but is not incorporated. The USPS puts post offices wherever they feel they are needed without regard to municipal boundaries.
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:41:41 AM
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :no:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2022, 11:43:39 AM
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Triangle_Park
The park is an unincorporated area, and state law prohibits municipalities from annexing areas within the park.
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:44:34 AM
Welp my theory has been proven wrong! :rolleyes:
Durham has quite a few zip codes assigned, and the locals tend to use only the last two digits: Oh-One is 27701 in Downtown; Oh-Two is 27702 also in Downtown; Oh-Three is 27703 and is locally known as "Southern", which is actually east of the city; Oh-Four is 27704 is in the Braggtown section; Oh-five is 27705 is West Durham; Oh-six is 27706 for students on campus at Duke; Oh-seven is 27707 is Old South Durham (now known as Hope Valley); Oh-eight is 27708 is for Duke University departments; and Oh-nine is Research Triangle Park. There are others as well.
Fun fact: Some businesses in the Oh-Nine shorten the city name to Durham 27709, but most use the moniker Research Triangle Park 27709. I used to work for an employer at a project office alongside the Triangle Transit Authority (now Triangle Transit dba Go Triangle) capital projects department. We were all on the same floor in the same large office space. My employer used Durham 27709 and TTA used Research Triangle Park 27709. Very weird.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2022, 07:09:44 PM
And sometimes the post office creates fictional towns for its own convenience. You can send mail to Shawnee Mission, Kansas, but if you go there you won't find any real-world city called Shawnee Mission. You can go to the city of Shawnee and the city of Mission, though (and I think a good number of other small cities, like Roeland Park and Fairway, might also be lumped in with "Shawnee Mission").
There was (still is), on the other hand, a very real and actual place called
Shawnee Mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawnee_Methodist_Mission) not far from where my mom grew up. My parents are both originally from Shawnee Mission, having met in school at Shawnee Mission North.
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2022, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2022, 07:09:44 PM
And sometimes the post office creates fictional towns for its own convenience. You can send mail to Shawnee Mission, Kansas, but if you go there you won't find any real-world city called Shawnee Mission. You can go to the city of Shawnee and the city of Mission, though (and I think a good number of other small cities, like Roeland Park and Fairway, might also be lumped in with "Shawnee Mission").
There was (still is), on the other hand, a very real and actual place called Shawnee Mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawnee_Methodist_Mission) not far from where my mom grew up. My parents are both originally from Shawnee Mission, having met in school at Shawnee Mission North.
Well, sure. But most of the addresses that have Shawnee Mission on the bottom line aren't inside that building. :D
(Isn't it sort of silly that the mission isn't actually in Mission, but instead in Fairway?)
Quote from: ran4sh on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 PM
Quote from: snowc on March 03, 2022, 11:41:41 AM
Ooof!
RTP is considered a city
Has a Post Office? :yes:
https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6 (https://goo.gl/maps/aNvRjwUTB2xtCTAo6)
Having a post office and being a city/incorporated municipality are two very different and completely independent things.
How many named Post Offices serve NYC as well as the City of Los Angeles, CA?
Mike
Can Birmingham, AL merge with Jefferson County?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 10, 2022, 04:03:12 PM
Can Birmingham, AL merge with Jefferson County?
It can if Alabama law allows. Depends on whether they want to.
It's happened several times already. NYC is actually 5 counties (each borough is one, with Manhattan being New York County, Staten Island being Richmond County, the other borough counties using their own name). Indianapolis and Marion County merged in the late 1960s. Then there's Miami/Dade County, Houston/Harris County, and Jacksonville/Duval County that merged city and county governments. There are probably others I can't think of right now.
Here's another one: Chicago really needs to separate from Cook County. Chicago definitely doesn't need both city and county governments, and Cook County can't possibly optimize what's best for Chicago, Calumet City, and Winnetka.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 10, 2022, 06:57:02 PM
Here's another one: Chicago really needs to separate from Cook County. Chicago definitely doesn't need both city and county governments, and Cook County can't possibly optimize what's best for Chicago, Calumet City, and Winnetka.
But between the city, over 100 suburbs, and the various county agencies, that's a lot of politicians, bureaucrats and union thugs that need to be paid off when the need arises. Can't get rid of them. Unemployment will rise by 10% if they do. ;-) :)
Quote from: bandit957 on February 26, 2022, 11:46:53 PM
Someone had a website about 20 years ago that showed their proposals for forming new counties. I think there were some in California, and maybe one in Long Island. I think there was one in Iowa (or maybe Kansas) whose only purpose was to pare it down to the size and shape of surrounding rectangular counties.
It was a suggestion to split the northern half of Kossuth County, IA, into its own county just to give Iowa an even 100 counties. Truth be told, it actually
was its own county, Bancroft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_County,_Iowa), from 1851 to 1857. The same area became Crocker County (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocker_County,_Iowa) in 1870 but was dissolved a year later because the Iowa Constitution didn't allow any new counties to be less than 432 square miles.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 10, 2022, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 10, 2022, 04:03:12 PM
Can Birmingham, AL merge with Jefferson County?
It can if Alabama law allows. Depends on whether they want to.
It's happened several times already. NYC is actually 5 counties (each borough is one, with Manhattan being New York County, Staten Island being Richmond County, the other borough counties using their own name). Indianapolis and Marion County merged in the late 1960s. Then there's Miami/Dade County, Houston/Harris County, and Jacksonville/Duval County that merged city and county governments. There are probably others I can't think of right now.
Brooklyn is Kings County
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 10, 2022, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 10, 2022, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 10, 2022, 04:03:12 PM
Can Birmingham, AL merge with Jefferson County?
It can if Alabama law allows. Depends on whether they want to.
It's happened several times already. NYC is actually 5 counties (each borough is one, with Manhattan being New York County, Staten Island being Richmond County, the other borough counties using their own name). Indianapolis and Marion County merged in the late 1960s. Then there's Miami/Dade County, Houston/Harris County, and Jacksonville/Duval County that merged city and county governments. There are probably others I can't think of right now.
Brooklyn is Kings County
Yes, you're right. I forgot about that.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 10, 2022, 06:53:52 PM
It's happened several times already. NYC is actually 5 counties (each borough is one, with Manhattan being New York County, Staten Island being Richmond County, the other borough counties using their own name). Indianapolis and Marion County merged in the late 1960s. Then there's Miami/Dade County, Houston/Harris County, and Jacksonville/Duval County that merged city and county governments. There are probably others I can't think of right now.
Kansas City-Wyandotte County (the WyCo Unified Government) in Kansas
I think there's one in Kentucky as well.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 10, 2022, 08:24:37 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 10, 2022, 06:53:52 PM
It's happened several times already. NYC is actually 5 counties (each borough is one, with Manhattan being New York County, Staten Island being Richmond County, the other borough counties using their own name). Indianapolis and Marion County merged in the late 1960s. Then there's Miami/Dade County, Houston/Harris County, and Jacksonville/Duval County that merged city and county governments. There are probably others I can't think of right now.
Kansas City-Wyandotte County (the WyCo Unified Government) in Kansas
I think there's one in Kentucky as well.
I think two (Louisville and Lexington)
Georgia has some too. Forget which ones, though.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on March 10, 2022, 08:37:25 PM
Georgia has some too. Forget which ones, though.
Athens-Clarke County
Macon-Bibb County
Augusta-Richmond County
Columbus and Muscogee County
Cusseta and Chattahoochee County
Georgetown and Quitman County
Statenville and Echols County
Webster County consolidated government
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 10, 2022, 06:57:02 PM
Here's another one: Chicago really needs to separate from Cook County. Chicago definitely doesn't need both city and county governments, and Cook County can't possibly optimize what's best for Chicago, Calumet City, and Winnetka.
I lived in the St Louis metro for almost 30 years during my career, over half that in the city. St Louis separated from its county about 150 years ago. It worked well for the city until the 1950s when white flight followed the interstates to the suburbs in the wake of Brown vs Board of Education. St Louis City only really started recovering financially and psychologically around Y2K and it still has a long way to go. The county, OTOH, is doing fairly well despite incidents like Ferguson.
The real problem though is the lack of regional cooperation caused by the separation. There is serious mistrust between the City and County governments when they work together on almost anything. I don't think the Zoo-Museum District cooperation between the City and County could exist if being formed today. I minored in Regional Planning, so watching the City-County conflicts on almost every issue for years was immensely frustrating as a local.
When I was a senior in high school (1974), my final term paper for my Government class was exploring the pros & cons of consolidating Cincinnati and Hamilton County into a single entity.
It's an idea that's never been seriously discussed; my conclusion 48 years ago (yikes) was that the risks outweighed the benefits; I know a lot more about local politics now, and my conclusion would be even stronger. The idea of merging the city and county 911 dispatch centers has been bandied about for 20 years and it has gone basically nowhere. I can't imagine the fireworks that would occur during the consolidation of 37 cities and villages (two of which also extend into neighboring counties) and 11 townships into a single governmental entity. Cincinnatians are know for their parochial attitudes.
Any county that is discontinuous (i.e. no direct road access between two parts of the county) are prime candidates for boundary changes IMHO. For example, Bryan County, Georgia is separated in two by Fort Stewart, which means there are no direct road access between the two parts of the county without entering other counties. There are two options, and both would have major drawbacks and/or cost a lot of $$$:
1. Build a road (surrounded by high fences and grade separations for military vehicles) connecting the Richmond Hill area to the Pembroke area. Make it a re-extension of GA 67.
2. Since Georgia has a constitutional limit of 159 counties, I would pare down Bryan County to only include the fast-growing area south of Fort Stewart, with northern Bryan County being moved into Bulloch County. The county seat of Bryan County would move to Richmond Hill, as Pembroke (the current county seat) would become part of Bulloch County.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 10, 2022, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 10, 2022, 04:03:12 PM
Can Birmingham, AL merge with Jefferson County?
It can if Alabama law allows. Depends on whether they want to.
It's happened several times already. NYC is actually 5 counties (each borough is one, with Manhattan being New York County, Staten Island being Richmond County, the other borough counties using their own name). Indianapolis and Marion County merged in the late 1960s. Then there's Miami/Dade County, Houston/Harris County, and Jacksonville/Duval County that merged city and county governments. There are probably others I can't think of right now.
When did Houston and Harris County merge?