Mwd-So consolidation/shared services
Seguine
services and town consolidation was that legislation to fund the
studies might not go through. I had been assured that those in the know
in Trenton were certain that funding would be available, but being a
skeptical individual, my enthusiasm was still a bit muted.
Now, however, it appears that under new rules, the state will be
picking up 90 percent of the cost of consolidation studies. That's
better than half, which is what I'd previously heard it was likely we'd
get.
See: hyperlink{http://www.nj.gov/dca/lgs/lfns/06lfns/2006-19.doc.}
So, what's not to like?
Seguine
I've vome to the conclusion that nearly all opposition falls into the
following categories:
1. Political. The opponent has some kind of vested interest in not
seeing a study commission formed, or in not seeing consolidation
happen. For instance, rumor has it that Ken Pettis would like to be
mayor next year and doesn't really wish to preside over the dissolution
of the governing body on which he sits. (Not sure there's much merit to
that suggestion, as consolidation wouldn't happen immediately even if a
commission recommended a yes vote a year from now.)
2. Personal. Other opponents simply despise Fred Profeta to such an
extent that any proposal backed by him automatically generates scorn --
all the more so if there's any chance that its fruition would increase
Profeta's power or standing in the community, or in the Democratic
Party. I think Vic DeLuca, David Huemer and David Frazer might fall
into this category, which I recognize could conceivably just be a
sub-category of Political.
3. Identity Issues. Maplewood is scared of South Orange -- not only
because SO has an ill-regarded government, but because of the word
"Orange" in our name. Maplewood is not one of the ORANGES. No, it is a
special place, a precious place, a place with a cute downtown. What in
the world would happen to it if it merged with the likes of *South
Orange*? (Well, it would gain an excellent recreation and cultural
affairs division, a second Indian restaurant, an Ethiopian restaurant,
and an arts center for starters, but I digress.) Besides, aren't the SO
proponents of a study commission really just trying to do an "end run"
around their own Town Hall? How dare they.
Maybe I shouldn't belittle these points of view -- who knows, some of
them might turn out to be valid in some respect or other. But shouldn't
we at least get this stuff out in the open when we're making premature
claims about how a shared services/consolidation committee's research
would find too little in savings even to justify the exercise of
looking?
Tom Reingold
It does sound belittling, Seguine.
I don't oppose merging, but this does seem to be a bad way to start
looking at it. I would like to do something that's good for folks of
both towns, but I can't recommend it in good conscience if I knew it
would be bad for Maplewood.
I don't feel superior to South Oranginas because I live in Maplewood.
We looked for a home almost four years ago and was equally open minded
to both towns. It just happened that we found one in Maplewood.
Shopping? The two towns are equally useful or useless.
I have no fear of faulty association with East Orange and Orange.
Really.
Tom
Seguine
> It does sound belittling, Seguine.
It was meant to. I simply acknowledge that my reaction might be wrong
in some way, not that I shouldn't have the reaction or write about it.
> I have no fear of faulty association with East Orange and Orange.
Then your mindset is not the one I am addressing.
>I don't oppose merging, but this does seem to be a bad way to start
looking at it.
Why? The state pays 90%. The voters decide in the end. Then, if and
when all obstacles have been cleared, there's still implementation, the
details of which would have to be worked out. It would of necessity be
a political process, though, nothing by fiat. And that's fine by me.
>I would like to do something that's good for folks of
both towns, but I can't recommend it in good conscience if I knew it
would be bad for Maplewood.
Well, no one expects you to. But how, at this point, before a
commission has even been convened, could you say with reasonable
certainty that you know what's good for Maplewood? Hell, we haven't
even seen a non-governmental assessment of our options yet, and as you
well know, the assessments of politicians and their supporters are not
necessarily disinterested (which has been the thrust of my point here).
For all I know there's no significant benefit to *SO* in consolidation
or shared services. In fact, I'm pretty skeptical all around; along
with many Mwoodians, I like our towns' separate identities just the way
they are. Frankly, all I expect will come of this process (if it
begins) is a certain amount of state-assisted research that will reveal
things we do not at the moment know. We might even come out stronger as
communities if what was revealed turned out to be a clearer picture of
what we're doing *right*, and why we might not want to change much at
all.
So why resist looking?
Tom Reingold
Maybe you won't get much of an argument from me, because our opinions
are probably close. Given that the two towns have been separate for
only about 84 years, they seem similar enough to me that I would not be
sad if they lost their individual identities.
I don't mind finding out if merging takes place, as long as the
investigation doesn't cost much.
But wouldn't it make more sense first to investigate consolidation of
services without merging towns?
Tom
Seguine
> But wouldn't it make more sense first to investigate consolidation of
> services without merging towns?
Despite what opponents of the study keep claiming, the study provides
for an investigation into shared services as well as an investigation
into merger. (It says so right in the referendum question we'll all
have a chance to vote on.) Moreover, there is no prohibition in the
statute against looking at merger or consolidation of services with
other towns as well.
The only danger from this study that I can see is a potential one: that
the study commission might wind up being packed with folks who have
made up their minds one way or another in advance. They could come to
an a priori conclusion and then, if their opponents are hopelessly
inept, they might sell their their priori conclusion to the public,
which would then vote for or against on the basis of their propaganda
effort. But all that seems like a bit of a longshot to me. Do we really
think we're going to get ten commisioners to all agree to going along
with that kind of manipulation?
The folks who already oppose merger (because they fear becoming one
with South Orange, or they think no savings will ensue, or whatever)
are not going to just lie down. So it seems to me they should show the
courage of their convictions and let the process play itself out.
BHW
communities -- our "small box" state is having problems competing
economically with "big box" states like Maryland, for example. I'm not
sure that simply merging two municipalities is the right answer -- but
I do think its worth looking at all of our options and planning for the
future. There are other avenues to explore - regional tax base
sharing, consolidating specific services on a county-wide or other
regional basis, etc... The study commission is not precluded from
commenting on these other options.
Barbara
Seguine
> I think some form of consolidation is in the future for many of our NJ
> communities
It would seem there's a strain in local opinion that holds
consolidation will be necessary elsewhere...not here. But, probably, we
are not unique in this.
>our "small box" state is having problems competing economically with "big box" states like Maryland, for example.
In what ways?
The only industry I know anything about in NJ is pharma/biotech (and my
knowledge of that is pretty superficial). But what I do know tells me
that certain industries are concentrated in certain places, and states
that host those industries enjoy an advantage over states where their
concentration is lower. Are you suggesting NJ is currently losing such
industrial centers to Maryland et al., or that it will in the future as
local taxes make the cost of living here prohibitive or else drive up
wages?
> I do think its worth looking at all of our options and planning for the
> future. There are other avenues to explore - regional tax base
> sharing, consolidating specific services on a county-wide or other
> regional basis, etc... The study commission is not precluded from
> commenting on these other options.
Indeed, and so I'm not sure what is driving the claims that the study
commission is "all about consolidation."
BHW
friend David Rusk, a speaker and consultant on urban policy in over 100
American metropolitan areas as well as in Canada, Great Britain,
Germany, The Netherlands and South Africa. A former mayor of
Albuquerque, New Mexico legislator, and federal Labor Department
official, he is author of Cities without Suburbs (1993; 3rd edition,
2003), Baltimore Unbound (1995), and Inside Game/Outside Game (1999).
"Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey - students of American
government will recognize that all these states with high levels of
racial
and/or economic segregation are also what I have called "little
boxes" states.
The twenty states of the Northeast and Midwest are divided in many,
many
local government jurisdictions - not only cities, and villages, but
towns and
townships that completely divide up every county.
By contrast, Georgia, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington, and the
other 26 southern and western states are relatively "Big Box"
states. There
are no townships; their cities typically expand by annexing
unincorporated
areas for which county government serves as the general local
government.
In addition, school districts are often county-wide as contrasted with
the
multiplicity of school districts in "little boxes" states.
Metropolitan Power Diffusion Index (MPDI) measures whether 17 different
public services are delivered in metropolitan areas by many local
governments ("diffused") or by relatively few local governments
("centralized").10 Table 11 lists the MPDI ratings for the CDP
regions.
Table 11
Metropolitan Power Diffusion Index Score in 1992
(Higher scores = greater fragmentation)
General School Metro Area Government Districts
Atlanta GA 7.72 4.04
Baltimore MD 3.19 2.46
Cleveland OH 6.87 6.44
Detroit MI 9.09 8.90
Philadelphia PA-NJ 15.40 10.39
By this measure, the bi-state Philadelphia region has the most
fragmented local governance (indeed, Philadelphia is number 1), and the
Baltimore region (with its reliance on county governments) is the least
fragmented governmentally.
Consequences of "Little Boxes"
What are the consequences of such fragmentation? First, more
governmentally fragmented states tend to sprawl more, in part, because
when local governments are highly dependent on property taxes (such as
Michigan's, Ohio's, and Pennsylvania's townships), each "little
box" tends to chase "tax ratables" (commercial, industrial, and
higher-end residential development) rather indiscriminately. By
contrast, a Big Box can pick and choose more since most new development
will be inside its taxing
jurisdiction regardless.
In addition, consider the planning horizons for local planners.
Though many planning issues transcend local boundaries, the legal
limits of
planners in "township" states are typically six miles on a side.
The average
local jurisdiction in Ohio, for example, covers just 19 square miles.
In
Maryland, where most planning powers are assigned to county
governments,
the average planning jurisdiction is 451 square miles. There is a big
difference between "comprehensive" land use planning for 19 square
miles
and comprehensive land use planning for 451 square miles.
Second, Miller has found a powerful statistical correlation between
governmental fragmentation and racial segregation. The more a region is
broken up into "little boxes," the more segregated that regional
society is.
My own observation is that the generally unspoken mission of most
"little
boxes" town councils and most "little boxes" school boards is
"to keep our
town (or our schools) just the way they are for people just like us"
-
whoever "us" happens to be. And so what ought to function as one
unified,
regional society gets broken down into all the "little boxes" by
race and
ethnicity and, increasingly, by income class.
By contrast, "Big Box" city councils and "Big Box" school
boards
(though far from color- or class-blind) tend to act with a greater
sense of
accountability to broader, more diverse constituencies. "Big box"
regions
are less racially and economically segregated.
Third, using Miller's MPDI, Jerry Paytas of Carnegie Mellon
University has concluded that fragmented governance weakens a
region's
long-term economic performance. To test that proposition, Paytas
examined how income levels varied in 285 metro areas between 1972 and
1997, using careful regression techniques to test the influence of the
regions'
varying levels of governmental fragmentation, as measured by the MPDI.
What Paytas found was clear: metropolitan fragmentation exerts a
statistically significant negative impact on competitiveness. Over the
long
run, dispersed governance inhibits a region's competitiveness by
diminishing its capacity to adapt to change, coordinate decisions, or
marshal
resources. Long-term competitiveness requires cohesiveness as well as
flexibility, yet fragmented regions are too fissured and parochial to
mobilize
on a regional scale.
Tom Reingold
On Oct 24, 3:06 pm, "Seguine" <jrcr...@optonline.net> wrote:
> The only industry I know anything about in NJ is pharma/biotech (and my
> knowledge of that is pretty superficial). But what I do know tells me
> that certain industries are concentrated in certain places, and states
> that host those industries enjoy an advantage over states where their
> concentration is lower. Are you suggesting NJ is currently losing such
> industrial centers to Maryland et al., or that it will in the future as
> local taxes make the cost of living here prohibitive or else drive up
> wages?
I've been working in NJ since 1987 and most of that has been in the
telecom industry. Remember that AT&T was based here and now many of the
splinter companies are. And I now work at a big(gish) VOIP company.
Here is more about industry in NJ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_jersey#Industry
Tom
Seguine
extended excerpts from any copyrighted material, as Google prohibits
this; I think it's kosher to post a link with a paragraph or two
excerpted, though).
I think I may actually have heard of David Rusk. What surprises me is
the degree of skepticism the material you posted here provokes in me.
That is, I would have thought I should agree with the thrust of his
argument, and I'm not sure I'm persuaded.
For one thing, I suppose I distrust economic analyses premised on a
single variable, such as the Metropolitan Power Diffusion Index.
Offhand, the premise that a high MPDI necessarily translates into a
decline in competitiveness over the long run does not seem born out in
the NY-NJ metro region.
In particular, I'm not sure what the basis for comparison is in this
statement:
"[M]etropolitan fragmentation exerts a statistically significant
negative impact on competitiveness. Over the long run, dispersed
governance inhibits a region's competitiveness by diminishing its
capacity to adapt to change, coordinate decisions, or marshal
resources. Long-term competitiveness requires cohesiveness as well as
flexibility, yet fragmented regions are too fissured and parochial to
mobilize on a regional scale."
Competitiveness with what? Delhi?
Last time I checked, the gravitational pull of Manhattan seemed
sufficient to 1) outweigh any regional non-competitveness engendered by
the littleness of northern NJ municipalities, and 2) still out-compete
any regional unity northern NJ might be able to develop by
consolidating more.
As for sprawl, well, I was down in the Baltimore area recently and, I
have to say, its suburbs were the most facelessly corporate, whitebread
places imagineable. (Except perhaps for those in the Dallas-Ft. Worth
area, where I grew up. Big, srawling messes.) In fact, on the basis of
my purely anecdotal experience, it is only in the "little boxes" states
that real neighborhoods continue to exist at all.
And as for racial segregation, it's everywhere--including, for
instance, in San Francisco, where (last time I checked) there was only
about half the population of black people you'd expect, based on the
national average. Yet, just across the bay in Oakland, African
Americans were probably as numerous as they are in Philly.
Would SO-Mwd becoming part a regional school system significantly
increase racial (that is to say, black) integration in, say,
Livingston? I don't know. But my guess is, not without busing kids all
over the region. If people wished to segregate, they might still find a
way.
There's another issue--a depressing one, really--that may apply in any
analysis of the virtues of bigness over smallness or 'localism',
especially as regards racial tolerance. I'm going to have to see if I
can find a link to a study I recently read about that suggests
integration (of all kinds) increases people's mutual mistrust, mistrust
of government, etc.
I haven't read the study, so can't offer any opinion about its
reliability. But it may be worth considering that perhaps our community
works (so far) because people here have largely *chosen* to integrate.
That's obviously not the case throughout NJ, or elsewhere. So one must
ask, if regional consolidations did have the effect of increasing
integration in places where people would otherwise not have chosen to
integrate, would that hurt or harm the state's competitiveness?