Consolidation Panacea

This week's Messenger Post newspapers contained an editorial that lauded the consolidation of Nazareth Academy and Aquinas schools and indicated the belief that consolidation of schools and churches, like that of government, was a wise and good thing. This view is shared by the Democrat & Chronicle editorial board which last week had its own editorial in support of the Rochester Catholic Diocese's decision to consolidate schools. The D&C similarly noted that the school consolidation was a good example for local governments to follow.

The missing fact from these stories is that the reason for consolidation of churches and schools in the the Catholic Diocese is declining enrollment. There are too many churches and schools for the community that wants them. The consolidations in the Diocese include the closure of unneeded or under-utilized schools and churches. The analogy to government is not clear.

Is there really a decline in the need for public services? Not really. The impetus behind consolidation efforts in our area has been, and remains, the fact that the City of Rochester is a failing (failed?) entity that cannot afford the services (most notably, police services) that it wants to provide to its citizens. Consolidation is a way to capture the tax revenues of suburban communities and transfer those revenues to the City.

How will this be accomplished? Very simply. The public services now enjoyed by those suburban communities will be reduced. In my Town of Gates, for example, the 4-5 police cars which currently patrol Gates 24/7, will be reduced to 1 or 2 per shift under consolidated government. Those other cars will be moved to parts of the community which have a "greater need". Unfortunately, the savings which are promised by consolidation advocates will be negligible, because, unlike the Diocese example, services and personnel are not being cut; for the most part, they will be shifted.

Don't misunderstand me. I believe there are many opportunities for consolidation of municipal governments. I can think of little reason for the existence of certain special districts which encompass entire towns. It is likely that water, sewer and lighting districts could be absorbed by town or county governments and some administrative savings might result. Fire and ambulance districts often overlap and some duplicate services. Where there are obvious duplications, consolidation may be warranted.

My problem with consolidation advocates is that they imply that New Yorkers will no longer be over-taxed if we just got rid of these unneeded local goverments. That's nonsense! We are overtaxed because of our bloated, inefficient, partisan and self-interested State government. Moreover, the proponents of consolidation never admit that they have the ulterior motive of transferring tax revenues and services to the failing entities (usually cities) and away from largely successful and prosperous ones (usually towns and villages). Further, people have the right to as much service as they are willing to pay for. Consolidation advocates want to take that right away from people and create larger regional governments that will "do what's best" for a greater number of people. That's code for taking my money and giving it to someone else.

I wish the consolidation debate was an honest one. Let people understand that the choice is somewhat lower costs along with a greater loss of services. More than that, I wish consolidation advocates could acknowledge that as long as there is no reform in Albany, New York's taxation and spending problems will remain serious and that the savings from the merger of a couple of municpal governments will be a drop in the bucket.