Consolidate Services, Not Towns and Villages
By Jim Willis on May 4, 2008 in Government & Politics | Printable Version
Below is my reaction to the Press & Sun-Bulletin editorial titled Taxpayers fund too many layers in today’s issue. Once again the P&SB is beating the drum for political consolidation and misleading people into confusing a consolidation of services– like police and fire–with the elimination of local political entities, like towns and villages.
My response:
Consolidate services? Sure, why not, if you can save money. Consolidate political entities? No!
First, name one recent instance anywhere in the United States where consolidating a political/municipal entity resulted in a cost savings. Name just one! It doesn’t exist. Governments often share services like police and fire and other services when and where it makes sense, but it makes no sense (and you don’t save money) by eliminating local political municipalities.
Town board members, supervisors and others who lead our local municipalities are part-time and don’t make big bucks for the hours they put in serving their neighbors. Who better to deal with local issues like land use, zoning, noise ordinances and the like than local people who live in the communities they serve?
The P&SB constantly beats the drum for “consolidation”–but how does consolidating political power in the hands of a few (like the dreadful Barbara Fiala) accomoplish any good for these communities? Answer: It doesn’t. Get on with sharing services and forget about political consolidation.
Technorati Tags: Binghamton, municipal consolidation, government shared services, government consolidation