Should areas become their own counties/cities?

[mgk920]

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

[ran4sh]

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.

"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.

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.

[JayhawkCO]

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.

"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%

[Dirt Roads]

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.

[US 89]

Because I was bored, I made a spreadsheet showing the percentage of each state's population in its largest county using 2020 data:



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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[webny99]

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 

[skluth]

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.

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.

[bandit957]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[Rothman]

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?

[mgk920]

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?

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

[NWI_Irish96]

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

[Scott5114]

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?

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.

[vdeane]

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).

[Scott5114]

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.

[Ted$8roadFan]

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?
[/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

[Dirt Roads]

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?

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

Reynolds v. Sims, 1964.

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. 

[hotdogPi]

Vermont's state senate is still based on county lines.

[Scott5114]

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.

[golden eagle]

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.

[Ted$8roadFan]

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.

[frankenroad]

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).

[Scott5114]

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).

[andrepoiy]

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.