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.
Obviously just as with most anything their will always be those that aren't happy with with everything but as sgt showed by the numbers it makes sence to reduce the counties in the state. Just because it is the way things have always been doesn't mean that it is the best way to do them. KY is in a financial grind and instead of raising tuition for colleges this is just one idea how money could be saved and used to benefit the state.
Obviously just as with most anything their will always be those that aren't happy with with everything but as sgt showed by the numbers it makes sence to reduce the counties in the state. Just because it is the way things have always been doesn't mean that it is the best way to do them. KY is in a financial grind and instead of raising tuition for colleges this is just one idea how money could be saved and used to benefit the state.
I'm less certain of its benefits in the short-term than in the long-term. Politically, this would be heavy lifting, no doubt. I'm almost positive that this could not catch on with enough fire and heat to generate any legislation for 2009. We're talking 2010 at the very best, and at that, it would have to allow counties time, probably 3-5 years, to plan for practical adjustments.
However, one thing that we would have in our favor is the fact that KY would not be the first state to have taken this step. There may be others, but my quick research has revealed that Massachusetts and Connecticut have both reconfigured their county operations in our lifetimes.
And how many is too many? Hmm? So we should have 86, 42, or 7 counties Davart? Why on earth does it matter how many counties exist in this state? Each county is different and the residents are pround of their counties and just taking an axe to certain counties would be, well dumb...
It's called inefficient and redundant services, to many chiefs and on enough Indians to pay the taxes. And that's what I call dumb ... you either get it or you don't and clearly you don't get it and 60 counties would be enough.
kygman, see my previous post (#37) about on-the-ground workers...
Sorry about that, Sarge! lol Must have had a blonde moment there! When they started talking about merging the counties in the highway department, I was glad I was retiring (last Feb.). From what I heard those plans have been dropped...again. One thing I have always said is you can't put "common sense" and "Commonwealth of Kentucky" in the same sentence! lol
Sgt,
You say some of the offices in each county should be kept open. So what do we do with them? Do we keep the same building and pay for the upkeep, with no reduction in expenses there and a half-empty building or build new, smaller buildings, with a greater outlay of funds?
For those who live closer to good roads and the county seat, larger counties would be fine, but for those who live in outlying areas it may be a problem. As it is now, I drive 20 minutes to get to our county seat and there are quite a few in my county who live farther out.
For one thing, it would be a legal nightmare trying to merge all the wet counties with the dry counties.
Ky needs to cut back on some of its budget by not building any new highways, not tearing down any historic buildings and building new buildings. Make better use of existing structures. Trim the pork.
Sgt,
You say some of the offices in each county should be kept open. So what do we do with them? Do we keep the same building and pay for the upkeep, with no reduction in expenses there and a half-empty building or build new, smaller buildings, with a greater outlay of funds?
I go with "a"... keep the same building, pay for the upkeep, with no reduction in those expenses there and a half-empty building... if necessary.
That's still preferable to the current situation because the major expenses eliminated are the unnecessary personnel.
In those cases where there is office space available, it's always possible that that can either be rented out to non-profit agencies that attempt to provide services to a given area. But I think this is going to be a limited situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonsdaughter
For those who live closer to good roads and the county seat, larger counties would be fine, but for those who live in outlying areas it may be a problem. As it is now, I drive 20 minutes to get to our county seat and there are quite a few in my county who live farther out.
Okay. This is a problem? Do you consider 20 minutes to be a long time to travel?
For one thing, it would be a legal nightmare trying to merge all the wet counties with the dry counties.
I live in one county where part of it is wet and part of it is dry. No legal nightmares here.
Again, I'm not advocating that county boundaries be eliminated. I'm advocating that county governance and services be combined for economies of scale as it makes sense to do so.
Essentially, you could think of it as a de-emphasis on county lines, again, much as we currently do in having judicial districts. In terms of how we refer to it, perhaps the phraise "services district" is best... thus, personally, I would live in the Madison-Clark Services District (?).
But whatever we call it, it just needs to happen, if not immediately, as soon as practical.
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.
...
