Should areas become their own counties/cities?

[tolbs17]

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/

[hotdogPi]

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.

[tolbs17]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[SkyPesos]

So something like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

[MATraveler128]

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

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.)

[Scott5114]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

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. 

[hotdogPi]

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.

[SkyPesos]

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.

I remember counting the population of metro areas each x0 interstate serves in this thread 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.

[mgk920]

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

[hotdogPi]

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.

[GaryV]

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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[golden eagle]

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?

[oscar]

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.

[KeithE4Phx]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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?

[KeithE4Phx]

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.

[Scott5114]

Discussion of individual politicians or political parties and their motivations is beyond the remit of this forum.

[KeithE4Phx]

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.