Consolidation = Redistribution

I can only marvel at the growing array of editorialists and pundits who are working towards the elimination of smaller municipal governments. The Democrat & Chronicle used most of its editorial page on Thursday to explain, once again, that consolidation is the only way to cut the cost of government and that anyone who doesn't agree is a self-serving politico or a fool who just won't face reality.

I wish a real debate and discussion of the hidden agenda behind the consolidation drive could be had. The D&C, the Center for Governmental Research and countless other experts, keep telling us that consolidation and regionalism are the only smart ways to go.

Why?

The "obvious" reason is that there would be "great" cost savings from the elimination of duplicative services. Certainly, there is some truth to that. I am sure that there are administrative expenses that could be eliminated by consolidation. I would, however, like someone to at least offer us some numbers. I question whether the amount of savings would justify the loss of "self-determination" that we have in our own localities.

Further, there is never any discussion about the reduction in services that would come from consolidation. During a recent blog post on this topic, consolidation supporters criticized a fire district in Greece for building a new station. The argument that there were enough stations in the general vicinity, so that the residents in that area could have had sufficient service if a regional approach was used. A similar point was made about how "everybody understands" that the Brighton Police Department is unneeded with a Sheriff's Department available for the entire county.

Really? So who gets to decide how many police we have protecting us, or how many fire halls serve us or how often the streets are plowed or our debris is picked up? Today, in Gates, the residents of Gates decide. In the consolidation scenario, someone else will.

This brings me to the hidden agenda. The real reason for consolidation and regionalism is so that the productive, successful and viable parts of the region can subsidize the broken, failing parts. For example, today there are 4 or 5 cars patrolling Gates on an average shift. If we go to metro police, will we still have 4 or 5 cars in Gates? Of course not! The former Gates officers will be working their metro duties in the high crime areas of the City of Rochester.

You see, when consolidation supporters say the cost of local government is too high, they don't mean you will save a lot of money under a regional government. They mean that YOU spend too much money on "lavish" services you really DON'T NEED. That money should be spent where its really needed. Its just not fair that Gates has its own police or that the Brighton schools spend extra money on pupils, when there's more crime in the City and RCSD students aren't doing well on their tests.

I wrote about this previously here and here. The supporters of metro are really supporters of saving and expanding the power base of failed policies and politicians. Little more needs to be said than to point out that ex-mayor Bill Johnson has a prominent place on Gov. Spitzer's Commission looking into consolidation. We ought to let him have another crack at our money, right?

Seriously, though, get ready for a big consolidation push. Be ready for it. Ask the right questions. How much will local services be cut (my guess, a lot)? How much will total taxes be reduced(me again, not much, I'd bet)? Ask why we can't decide to have an extra cop, fireman, or teacher in our town, if we are willing to pay for it. Ask what percentage of our total taxes are town taxes versus state and county taxes. Ask why we aren't first doing something about the real problem with over-taxation, which is our State Government.

The reason is that consolidation supporters don't really think you PAY too much; they think you HAVE too much. They want to spread the wealth to those who NEED it, and that isn't YOU, if you live in the suburbs.