(image from Wikipedia)
Some counties in Massachusetts (Hampshire, for instance) have formed organizations similar to our regional councils, but have done things like purchased insurance in bulk and worked on combining services. They elect the members of their regional council at municipal elections.
What if each region pooled its resources for, say, road services (plowing!), social services or even education? What if each town gave up a little sovereignty for financial stability?
Or would that just add another layer of bureaucracy and expense?
20 comments:
Awful idea-- would end up with the suburbs further subsidizing the inner cities. Democrats in Hartford are already redistributing wealth in CT (causing a flight of the middle class to other states). Regionalization would exacerbate this trend.
CT is twenty years will be enclaves of rich and poor-- the middle class is being squeezed out by high taxes, lackluster job growth (because of high taxes and regulation), and high cost of living.
Regionalization will only accelerate these trends, as regions will essentially hand over inner city problems to the suburbs to fix.
And yet we can't continue to exist as 169 fiefdoms.
CT is about the size of a large California county both in area and population
No more layers. It's an excuse for more taxes. If localities want to set up sewer , school or fire districts, god bless them. Those will be done for real efficiencies, not liberal "screw the 'burbs" pipedreams
I still think that municipalities working together is one of the ways we can reduce property taxes. But maybe it needs to start smaller than these regional councils on the map.
Seventy percent of local property taxes goes to pay for local education. The only meaningful way to lower property taxes is to rationalize spending on eduction, which means taking on the teachers' union, most powerful union in the state. It won't happen with Democrats in control of the state legislature.
There is nothing right now to prevent towns from entering into an intermunicipal agreement (IMA) to share expenses and services. There is no need for another bureaucracy to force it.
CT has a long history of home rule. Residents like local control. Just look at the Boards of Education. Only the state social-engineers want to regiojnalize.
First I have a question - do these regional councils really exist? I've never heard of such a thing. What activities are currently involved in?
That said, I don't see why we can't reduce costs by having towns cooperate. Some towns share schools, don't they?
How will consolidation save money on things like trash pickup and snowplows? We'd still have to pay the same amount - as everyone needs to get their trashed picked up, and every road needs to be plowed. We wouldn't be reducing the number of roads or the amount of garbage.
One more level of Government means more taxes
On the other hand - it might stem some of the growth in the "public " sector. I trust you all realize that "local control" is only a euphorism for local graft + making sure my kid gets on the team.
From what I understand, RHAM in Hebron has been a great success for regionalizing education. It may actually be a way to relieve property taxes.
""local control" is only a euphorism for local graft"
Town budgets are relatively small, relatively transparent, and there's not as much money to steal.
The big scandals have all been in large urban areas (predominately funded with state grants) or the state government itself.
Small towns are funded by the awful painful property tax which means real people care deeply about what gets spent.
Less spending in a government entity means less temptation
>>Max Sklar said...
First I have a question - do these regional councils really exist?
Yes
I've never heard of such a thing.
They intentionally stay under the radar. Heaven forbid the press ever show up and report what they're up to - it would cause rioting in the streets. (A free press is only as good as that press; and they're collectively asleep at the switch.)
What activities are currently involved in?
They go after and receive loads and loads of federal grants. Whether anyone needs it or not. When I served on Central CT Reg. Planning we got in a pile of fresh cash for handicapped buses that no one had asked for. We set out to find someplace to put them, we actually had to talk some group into accepting them! The notion of sending the cash back (my idea) was met with much laughter, and ignored.
When you see bizarre multimillion road improvements where they really make little or no sense (and are often opposed by those that live on or near them) you can bet there was some federal dough that showed up thanks to some local political hacks and our illustrious regional planning agencies.
The above withstanding, there's all sorts of useful tasks that some regions do in fact do; it however makes up less than half of their time it appears.
Thanks ACR.
So let me get this straight. It sounds like our state legislators pass the buck onto these unelected regional bodies who then spend our federal tax dollars.
I also sounds like we're kind of being forced into this by the federal government. If we didn't have these regional councils, these grants would go to other states, right? So we'd lose out.
I think change needs to come at a federal level. They have no buisiness funding grants for improving state roads. I'd rather they stop doing it, give us a tax cut giving the state a larger tax base, and have the state fund the road improvements. I think that's a moderate enough proposal - but I doubt congress will act any time soon.
As to local graft, I'm sure its rampant. But how can you convince me that this won't simply be replaced by regional graft? And I still don't see how we save on things like plowing and garbage pickup.
When you buy a new tie, you should throw an old tie out. In this way, you avoid tie clutter. The same principle holds true with bureaucracies. Regional government should REPLACE town government; otherwise, you get bureaucratic clutter. And we don't need more of that. It's too expensive. The whole state of Connecticut is over 60, all the youn’ens having fled to greener pastures in the Carolinas, and we are on fixed incomes.
I served on my local regional planning agency for some period of time (SWRPA). It was filled with many political hacks who spent their time discussing nothing of consequence. Then, when the MPO's gained prominence, all of the elected officials wanted to do everything since they thought it would give them greater visibility.
A regional approach, while well sounding will be nothing more than a repetitive and dupliciative layer of bueracracy unless a multi-facted approach is taken that would lessen governmental tasks and function in another area.
The problem with local graft is that is done below the radar and on a scale that makes it seem reasonable. Local school systems hire local people who show up at town meetings demanding increased budgets. Local empoyees and family members all have a financial interest in pushing bigger and more elaborate budgets and programs that put public money in their pockets. Contracts are handed out to local contractors who repeat the pattern. All these people pass around town, touting spending plans to unsophisticated voters and all of a sudden local budgets exploded and then we have calls for mere state taxes to reduce "local tax burden".
I see now bluecoat is an expert in special ed.
And if mirror thinks the answer to local graft is more statewide funding, why is it the less state money a town gets, the fewer pols get investigated?
looks like we'd have to cut Stafford off and send it to Massachusetts
Regionalization is a related component of centralized government, and maybe we can compare this model to the similar the sales pitch that was promoted by many CT legislators who promoted de-regulation of our utility companies. The outcome has been monopolistic, and to the detriment of the conned public.
Those who support the anti-sovereignty movement: clintonistas, pro-israeli lobby, neo-liberals should use Mexico as a reference study guide to convince Americans we need to take up a third world form of government with totalitarian outcomes.
Post a Comment