If you were to consolidate governmental entities..... (New York, Albany: credit, loans)
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 guess I'm envisioning something like what is used in Nashville or Louisville. They basically have 1 government that provides most services. A general services for the whole county and then an urban services district for the more urbanized areas that want the bonus services (streetlights, etc).
I think I see where you are coming from. I still feel it is essentially the same structure we currently have in NY.
NY Counties provide those "general" services. NY Towns provide those "bonus" services. Downstate is densely populated - some counties are larger than Nashville or Louisville. There, the towns do more because there are more people requiring more services. Comparing to Nashville or Louisville, you could make the argument that we need more localized government entities here because we have more people. (Nassau County alone, as an example, has twice the population of Nashville and about 5x the population of Louisville).
In some rural/less populated areas I am familiar with, the "town" is basically two or three part time people providing those optional services. In the context of duplication of services/consolidation services, cutting out the "town" level serves no useful purpose - especially if it is simply renamed to an urban service district. Moving the few services they provide saves nothing and would likely cost more to pay people to do it at the county level.
I'm 100% with you to seek out and eliminate duplication of services, where it makes sense. My point is that I do not see the county/town structure as inherently redundant. Any duplication/waste/fraud should and could be tackled on its own, while leaving the idea of local control/representation in place.
Let me throw you a different idea...
Why not eliminate the counties and let the towns provide those services? Most will agree that bigger bureaucracies are less efficient. Decentralize and let things run on a local level. Eliminate the fat cats at the county level. For "major" services with efficiencies of scale, let the towns enter contracts with each other (i.e. chip in to buy some big snow plows).
The question needs to be answered. Why are these government agencies not affordable anymore? The financials used to work. It can only be caused by the government itself, and wanting to consolidate to create an even larger and stronger government only spells worst fiscal responsibility in the future. Go back and fix what's broken. Why were so many government workers granted retirement programs at age 55 while the rest of us paying the bills have to wait till age 67? That's just one issue.
That's a very interesting article. While it seems to be pretty balanced, my take-away is that it provides a good argument against consolidation. Here's a county that is doing the right thing and saving money - yet the complete disfunction in Albany (despite what the article claims are good intentions) penalizes for it.
A good example of why the local "home rule" idea is so hard to change. Do we want the jokers in Albany making decisions for us and spending our tax dollars? Or do we want more local control with people who are theoretically more accountable to the local community? Here, Tompkins is doing right by its residents - with measures that may or may not work well (or be welcome) in other counties.
The end of the article reinforces the point: “From our perspective, we are slowly losing our ability as a local government to respond to the community needs because of a vast amount of our tax base going to Albany,â€
So it doesn't matter how much they save - a large amount is still going to the higher level (i.e. consolidated) level of government. Tomkins may or may not see those tax dollars used for services in their own county - if Tomkins has truly become more efficient, it is likely that they will see less of their own tax dollars, as Albany is force to allocate them to less efficient counties.
Here's a situation where the local municipality has already "consolidated." (Per the article: "Trenton Town Supervisor Joe Smith says the Town already does most of the work for the Village. The transition would mostly involve more paperwork.")
So why are they dissolving? Read the last line: "The Town Supervisor says getting the money to complete the work on a sanitary system may have to come in phases, as the repairs needed are quite extensive."
The Village cannot afford to repair their sanitary system. So instead of the Village residents paying for something that only they use, the cost will be shifted to a higher level of government. Either town, county or state residents will be paying for this village's sanitary system.
In this case, "consolidation" would lower the tax burden for the village residents, but increase it for other non-residents. No savings - just a redistribution of costs.
In most "village" situations, the residents happily pay a small premium to get some extra services (village pool, village police, etc.). In the case of Barneveld, it seems the residents simply don't want to pay for an essential service and found a way to get others to subsidize the cost.
That's a very interesting article. While it seems to be pretty balanced, my take-away is that it provides a good argument against consolidation. Here's a county that is doing the right thing and saving money - yet the complete disfunction in Albany (despite what the article claims are good intentions) penalizes for it.
A good example of why the local "home rule" idea is so hard to change. Do we want the jokers in Albany making decisions for us and spending our tax dollars? Or do we want more local control with people who are theoretically more accountable to the local community? Here, Tompkins is doing right by its residents - with measures that may or may not work well (or be welcome) in other counties.
The end of the article reinforces the point: “From our perspective, we are slowly losing our ability as a local government to respond to the community needs because of a vast amount of our tax base going to Albany,â€
So it doesn't matter how much they save - a large amount is still going to the higher level (i.e. consolidated) level of government. Tomkins may or may not see those tax dollars used for services in their own county - if Tomkins has truly become more efficient, it is likely that they will see less of their own tax dollars, as Albany is force to allocate them to less efficient counties.
Here's a situation where the local municipality has already "consolidated." (Per the article: "Trenton Town Supervisor Joe Smith says the Town already does most of the work for the Village. The transition would mostly involve more paperwork.")
So why are they dissolving? Read the last line: "The Town Supervisor says getting the money to complete the work on a sanitary system may have to come in phases, as the repairs needed are quite extensive."
The Village cannot afford to repair their sanitary system. So instead of the Village residents paying for something that only they use, the cost will be shifted to a higher level of government. Either town, county or state residents will be paying for this village's sanitary system.
In this case, "consolidation" would lower the tax burden for the village residents, but increase it for other non-residents. No savings - just a redistribution of costs.
In most "village" situations, the residents happily pay a small premium to get some extra services (village pool, village police, etc.). In the case of Barneveld, it seems the residents simply don't want to pay for an essential service and found a way to get others to subsidize the cost.
Perhaps it is a matter of other counties getting in the same or similar page as Tompkins County or it may be a matter of how the consolidation is done.
I think the thinking in terms of Barneveld is to dissolve and have the cost spread out across the town, to also get rid of other costs that comes with the village in terms of perhaps government officials or the services that the village may still provide.
Perhaps it is a matter of other counties getting in the same or similar page as Tompkins County
Absolutely. That is, IMO, the issue - frivolous spending and waste.
Quote:
or it may be a matter of how the consolidation is done.
I'm not convinced consolidation, in any form, is proven to provide economic benefit. Most evidence (corporate mergers, for example) indicates that consolidation does not achieve the promised savings and often results in increased costs.
Again, use the Tompkins example. They are cutting costs and becoming efficient. That should benefit their residents. Now, let's say the next county over is bloated and inefficient. The two counties consolidate...
There is no inherent reason for county "B" to become any more efficient. Tompkins now has to raise taxes to subsidize the other county's mess. County "B" is essentially rewarded by having some of their waste being paid for by non-residents. Not much different with the tax money we currently sent to Albany - but in the consolidation scenario all local benefits are lost.
Tompkins may have negotiated a lower rate for some services, but now those rates will be raised to what "County B" was paying. Tompkins now loses all incentive to cut their own costs.
I'm sure consolidation can work in some very limited situations. I don't see any evidence it would provide benefits in NYS government.
Quote:
I think the thinking in terms of Barneveld is to dissolve and have the cost spread out across the town, to also get rid of other costs that comes with the village in terms of perhaps government officials or the services that the village may still provide.
I don't know the budget numbers for Barneveld. Certainly the elimination of a few elected officials will save some money. It is likely a drop in the bucket. The one or two small services indicated in the article (water) will still have to be performed and will likely cost the same.
From the article, it is very clear that the village sanitary facility is the driving force. Rather than village residents paying the bill, they are dissolving the village so that others can subsidize the high cost.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the reasons. The costs involved are the same either way. It is just a matter of how the cost is spread out. As a village, they would pay for what they use. When they dissolve (consolidate into the town) the same cost is spread out among more people, many of whom see no benefit from the service.
It's not that I am against consolidation, per se. It's simply that I don't see any demonstrable cost savings. Both of these articles provide good arguments against consolidation. (Unless you are a Barneveld resident who will get others to pay for their sanitation repairs).
Absolutely. That is, IMO, the issue - frivolous spending and waste.
I'm not convinced consolidation, in any form, is proven to provide economic benefit. Most evidence (corporate mergers, for example) indicates that consolidation does not achieve the promised savings and often results in increased costs.
Again, use the Tompkins example. They are cutting costs and becoming efficient. That should benefit their residents. Now, let's say the next county over is bloated and inefficient. The two counties consolidate...
There is no inherent reason for county "B" to become any more efficient. Tompkins now has to raise taxes to subsidize the other county's mess. County "B" is essentially rewarded by having some of their waste being paid for by non-residents. Not much different with the tax money we currently sent to Albany - but in the consolidation scenario all local benefits are lost.
Tompkins may have negotiated a lower rate for some services, but now those rates will be raised to what "County B" was paying. Tompkins now loses all incentive to cut their own costs.
I'm sure consolidation can work in some very limited situations. I don't see any evidence it would provide benefits in NYS government.
I don't know the budget numbers for Barneveld. Certainly the elimination of a few elected officials will save some money. It is likely a drop in the bucket. The one or two small services indicated in the article (water) will still have to be performed and will likely cost the same.
From the article, it is very clear that the village sanitary facility is the driving force. Rather than village residents paying the bill, they are dissolving the village so that others can subsidize the high cost.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the reasons. The costs involved are the same either way. It is just a matter of how the cost is spread out. As a village, they would pay for what they use. When they dissolve (consolidate into the town) the same cost is spread out among more people, many of whom see no benefit from the service.
It's not that I am against consolidation, per se. It's simply that I don't see any demonstrable cost savings. Both of these articles provide good arguments against consolidation. (Unless you are a Barneveld resident who will get others to pay for their sanitation repairs).
Then, explains how many Southern counties consolidated in terms of school districts and law enforcement agencies in many cases and in turn, those things play a part in lower taxes? A part of school consolidation in the South had to do with school integration and ways to combat city flight, but in spite of resistance initially, people seem to have embraced it in part due to cost savings. There are other factors that come into play in terms of state comparisons, but those 2 things would seem to go a long way towards lowing taxes. There will or may have to be some hits taken in terms of employment, but on the flip side, it could help create/increase private section jobs.
Then, explains how many Southern counties consolidated in terms of school districts and law enforcement agencies in many cases and in turn, those things play a part in lower taxes?
To do so would require a look at the specific county(s) and analysis of all the details involved. Then, those factors would have to be compared to NY to see if the same conditions apply. That's all assuming the taxes did decrease and consolidation was the cause for the decrease.
Again, I'm not claiming that consolidation can never work. Just that I don't see it as a sweeping panacea. As studies have shown, it is more likely to work with smaller entities and have little to no advantage on larger ones.
The real problem is that we simply pay too much for the services we receive. Salaries, benefits and pensions have spiraled out of control. Waste and fraud is rampant as politicians give out lucrative contracts to friends/donors. This is proven fact - Tom Gulotta (ex Nassau-County Executive) gave sweetheart deals to all the public unions and almost brought the county to bankruptcy. Dan Skelos (top Republican in the state) and Sheldon Silver (top Democrat in the state) were both convicted and forced to resign from office. John Venditto (ex town of Oyster Bay supervisor) recently resigned and is under investigation for corruption. Ed Mangano (current Nassau county executive) is under federal indictment.
Unfortunately, any discussion of major change in New York must take into account the systemic corruption. That is at the heart of the problem of why we pay so much more for services than other places.
IMO, consolidation only creates more powerful crooks with bigger contracts to dole out to friends. Long Island (e.g. Tammany Hall) aside, decentralization gives people a little better chance at holding their representatives accountable (I know from experience that a small, local police force is more accountable to the community than a large, county-wide force.)
Consolidation should be a specialized solution based on specific facts. If your police force/school district/etc. could benefit from consolidation, great. Run the numbers, make a specific case and it should be easy to rally fellow residents to the cause. To generalize that consolidation will save money is a fallacy.
To do so would require a look at the specific county(s) and analysis of all the details involved. Then, those factors would have to be compared to NY to see if the same conditions apply. That's all assuming the taxes did decrease and consolidation was the cause for the decrease.
Again, I'm not claiming that consolidation can never work. Just that I don't see it as a sweeping panacea. As studies have shown, it is more likely to work with smaller entities and have little to no advantage on larger ones.
The real problem is that we simply pay too much for the services we receive. Salaries, benefits and pensions have spiraled out of control. Waste and fraud is rampant as politicians give out lucrative contracts to friends/donors. This is proven fact - Tom Gulotta (ex Nassau-County Executive) gave sweetheart deals to all the public unions and almost brought the county to bankruptcy. Dan Skelos (top Republican in the state) and Sheldon Silver (top Democrat in the state) were both convicted and forced to resign from office. John Venditto (ex town of Oyster Bay supervisor) recently resigned and is under investigation for corruption. Ed Mangano (current Nassau county executive) is under federal indictment.
Unfortunately, any discussion of major change in New York must take into account the systemic corruption. That is at the heart of the problem of why we pay so much more for services than other places.
IMO, consolidation only creates more powerful crooks with bigger contracts to dole out to friends. Long Island (e.g. Tammany Hall) aside, decentralization gives people a little better chance at holding their representatives accountable (I know from experience that a small, local police force is more accountable to the community than a large, county-wide force.)
Consolidation should be a specialized solution based on specific facts. If your police force/school district/etc. could benefit from consolidation, great. Run the numbers, make a specific case and it should be easy to rally fellow residents to the cause. To generalize that consolidation will save money is a fallacy.
I agree that consolidation alone will cure everything and yes, corruption is an aspect in terms of costs. With that said, how are states that still have their share of corruption still able to have lower tax burdens? As an example: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015...-investigation
So, there has to be something else outside of corruption that needs to be addressed in terms of services and tax burden.
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.
