Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how you can say that having more counties isn't more expensive than if we had a fewer amount. That makes no sence...the numbers prove that for every county certain things go along with them and they require money so the more counties the more money it costs.
Show me the numbers.... Like lets see, we've got 120 counties governing total population of roughly 4 million. Some provide services that others do not, yet allocation of funds and resources ultimately boils down to meeting needs on per capita basis. Are you tryin to tell us that reducing the number of county seats from say 120 to 80 will save the whole place 30%? Heck, thats like saying the fewer number of slices ye carve a 16" pizza into, then the larger becomes the whole pie.
Show me the numbers.... Like lets see, we've got 120 counties governing total population of roughly 4 million. Some provide services that others do not, yet allocation of funds and resources ultimately boils down to meeting needs on per capita basis. Are you tryin to tell us that reducing the number of county seats from say 120 to 80 will save the whole place 30%? Heck, thats like saying the fewer number of slices ye carve a 16" pizza into, then the larger becomes the whole pie.
Show me the numbers.... Like lets see, we've got 120 counties governing total population of roughly 4 million. Some provide services that others do not, yet allocation of funds and resources ultimately boils down to meeting needs on per capita basis. Are you tryin to tell us that reducing the number of county seats from say 120 to 80 will save the whole place 30%? Heck, thats like saying the fewer number of slices ye carve a 16" pizza into, then the larger becomes the whole pie.
Not at all but for every county for example is a country sherrif....120 of them. So consolidate the counties, less sherrifs, less cost. I'm not saying it's perfect but that is where I am coming from.
Do any counties share school systems with neighboring counties? I can't think of any. I played high school sports and it seemed each county had its own high school. Considering some of the counties in KY have 5-8k people, that is a huge waste.
Do any counties share school systems with neighboring counties? I can't think of any. I played high school sports and it seemed each county had its own high school. Considering some of the counties in KY have 5-8k people, that is a huge waste.
Nah, we've got intra county school systems in place. Kids from both Horse Cave (Hart Co) and Cave City (Barren) happily attend the same Caverna Middle School for example. And both counties also share public health facilities based in Hart. And then at other end of Barren Co, Glasgow shares its own hospital and jailing facilities with Metcalfe. Thats why I said ther haint no reason to interfere with co-operative intra county infrastructure that works fine already. And yeah if ye gather folks of all 3 counties together and suggest they consolidate to form a "more efficient" and "improved" system then they'll look at you thinkin ye must be from Mars.
Quote:
Historical: No man shall be more than one days walk to and from his home to the county seat...
I think this kinda says it all. And we like knowing our county authorities - judge, sheriff and others from downhome neighborly local perspective.
yeah lets cut down on the sheriffs departments and let crime run rampant. Thats a GREAT suggestion there sandman. Ive been 1-up'd again by the great sandman
yeah lets cut down on the sheriffs departments and let crime run rampant. Thats a GREAT suggestion there sandman. Ive been 1-up'd again by the great sandman
I was just using the sheriff's as an example of how each county brings with it expenses....don't think I mentioned getting rid of them it was just an example. That being said plenty of states get by with fewer counties and fewer county sheriffs so I doubt the impact would be too significant. You are blowing this way out of proportion though. My whole point was just to show that having fewer counties would result in a few less expenses. Would you like some sweet tea?
Not at all but for every county for example is a country sherrif....120 of them. So consolidate the counties, less sherrifs, less cost. I'm not saying it's perfect but that is where I am coming from.
Do you know what a Kentucky Sheriff's main role is?
How long have you lived in KY?
I truly commend your efforts to reduce taxes. I can't agree with you more on that point, but you must understand just how a bumblebee flys (engineers say they can't based on understood physics). Kentucky political behaviors are like the bumblebee... can't not be rationalized... that is why smaller counties are so much better than bigger consolidated counties.
The seven states most similar in population and land area to Kentucky (appx. 4.2 million and appx. 40,000 sq. mil. respectively) are:
- Alabama (4.5 mil & 51K)
- Indiana (6.3 mil & 36K)
- Iowa (3.0 mil & 56K)
- Louisiana (4.6 mil & 44K)
- Mississippi (2.9 mil & 47K)
- South Carolina (4.3 mil & 30K)
- Tennessee (6.1 mil & 41K)
Here are the 2008 state/local tax burdens as a percentage of income for each of those states, according to stats compiled by The Tax Foundation (comparisons with Kentucky's 9.4% burden in parentheses):
- Alabama: 8.6 (9.3% less than KY)
- Indiana: 9.4 (Even with KY)
- Iowa: 9.3 (1.0% less than KY)
- Louisiana: 8.4 (11.9% less than KY)
- Mississippi: 8.9 (5.6% less than KY)
- South Carolina: 8.8 (6.8% less than KY)
- Tennessee: 8.3 (13.25% less than KY)
Thus, those who pay state and local taxes in Kentucky hand over about 6.6% more of their paycheck than those in the 7 states most similar in population and land size. Moreover, only Mississippians have a lower per-capita income.
Here are the number of counties in comparison to Kentucky's 120:
Just logically, unnecessary duplication of services clearly is an inefficiency that Kentucky residents put up with.
It's also possible that there are efficiencies in Kentucky that are helping to counterbalance the effect of funding 120 county budget sheets that, otherwise, might be more painful.
The judicial court system long ago recognized the inefficiency, and for that reason, there are 60 district courts. Several districts remain dedicated to one county, but several others take in two or more counties.
Indeed, it is not politically viable to expect that the state would reorganize in any sudden way so as to reduce Kentuckians' tax burden; however, I promote the notion that there's no time like the present to establish a target year--perhaps 2015 or 2020--when county services will be combined to be congruent with their present judicial district.
SGT
P.S. If you're not aware of how the judicial districts break out, here's the URL to a map:
Last edited by SGT; 01-24-2009 at 09:11 PM..
Reason: (Added URL for map)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Comparison information
