Today's Rochester Democrat & Chronicle included a front-page story and an editorial dealing with open government issues.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for the D&C's sunshine agenda. Like almost all of its efforts, this one is partisan and is only aimed at targets that the Editorial Board thinks appropriate. As I noted in this recent post, the D&C only cares about openness when it will allow for a story critical of a GOP run entity.
Today, for example, the story and editorial deal with the difficulty of obtaining payroll information from local governments. For some reason, school districts were left out. If schools had been included, none of the 20 top earners listed in today's paper would have made the list. But school districts are one of the groups that are favored by the D&C, particularly since they fought Maggie Brooks and the FAIR plan.
As I noted in the post I referenced, the D&C's failure to criticise the City Council for its non-transparent decision to hold a special election, is proof that this paper's sun need only shine on its targets, not its friends.
Showing posts with label Local Government Consolidation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local Government Consolidation. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Sunday, April 18, 2010
A Closer Look At Property Taxes
The Democrat and Chronicle had this story on the front of the Local section today. It is the latest installment in their long-running series of articles on the fact that propery taxes in New York are too high and that local governments should be consolidated.
At the outset, let me note my concerns that local property taxes, particularly school taxes, may be too high. But the treatment that the D&C gives to the topic in today's article (like most of their stories on the issue) is far too superficial and leaves many questions unanswered. Further, the statistics listed in the article are not given context which would help us determine their relevance.
The main stat in the story is that Upstate NY counties have among the highest real property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. On its face, that seems like a damning fact. But how about some context? According to the National Ass'n. of Realtors, real property values in this area are in the bottom ten (10%) percent of values of the 150 largest metropolitan areas in the country (4th quarter, 2007). Given that fact, its not really surprising that taxes, as a percentage of value, are high.
The other regular feature of this type of article is the inevitable statement that property taxes in other states are far less than taxes here on the same value property. What the D&C has repeatedly fails discuss is what is in the basket of goods and services which local taxpayers receive for their money. In Gates, for example, my Town tax levy pays for police, fire and ambulance services, the highway department (plowing, street repair & maintenence, etc.), the library, the parks and recreation department and various other items. If I wanted to compare my taxes with those of someone in Virginia or North Carolina, I would have to know if all of those items were provided by the local government there, or if there were other taxes (for example, in Virginia where there is a personal property tax that covers some items our County property tax is earmarked for) or if there were private entities that provided those services for a fee. Only if we knew the relative cost of the same basket of goods and services in each location, could we make a fair comparison.
I would also like to see another statistic which I believe would be telling. I'd like to know the percentage of local taxes to total state and local taxes and where NY stands relative to other states in that vein. I pay substantially more in State income, sales and use taxes than I do in local taxes. I would be stunned if much more than 10-15% of my total state and local tax dollars went to local governments. When consolidation advocates statrt telling me we will save a lot by cutting down the number of governmental units, I'd like to ask them to show me the proof. We will still have the gaping maw that is Albany!
There is no question we are overtaxed in New York. I am sure that many municipal governments, particularly school districts, could tighten their belts. But in the end, I doubt there is as much disparity between local taxes here and in other states as people anecdotally believe. The real problem remains our State government in Albany. Until they stop spending money like there is no limit to our resources, we will continue to see our State lose people and opportunity.
At the outset, let me note my concerns that local property taxes, particularly school taxes, may be too high. But the treatment that the D&C gives to the topic in today's article (like most of their stories on the issue) is far too superficial and leaves many questions unanswered. Further, the statistics listed in the article are not given context which would help us determine their relevance.
The main stat in the story is that Upstate NY counties have among the highest real property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. On its face, that seems like a damning fact. But how about some context? According to the National Ass'n. of Realtors, real property values in this area are in the bottom ten (10%) percent of values of the 150 largest metropolitan areas in the country (4th quarter, 2007). Given that fact, its not really surprising that taxes, as a percentage of value, are high.
The other regular feature of this type of article is the inevitable statement that property taxes in other states are far less than taxes here on the same value property. What the D&C has repeatedly fails discuss is what is in the basket of goods and services which local taxpayers receive for their money. In Gates, for example, my Town tax levy pays for police, fire and ambulance services, the highway department (plowing, street repair & maintenence, etc.), the library, the parks and recreation department and various other items. If I wanted to compare my taxes with those of someone in Virginia or North Carolina, I would have to know if all of those items were provided by the local government there, or if there were other taxes (for example, in Virginia where there is a personal property tax that covers some items our County property tax is earmarked for) or if there were private entities that provided those services for a fee. Only if we knew the relative cost of the same basket of goods and services in each location, could we make a fair comparison.
I would also like to see another statistic which I believe would be telling. I'd like to know the percentage of local taxes to total state and local taxes and where NY stands relative to other states in that vein. I pay substantially more in State income, sales and use taxes than I do in local taxes. I would be stunned if much more than 10-15% of my total state and local tax dollars went to local governments. When consolidation advocates statrt telling me we will save a lot by cutting down the number of governmental units, I'd like to ask them to show me the proof. We will still have the gaping maw that is Albany!
There is no question we are overtaxed in New York. I am sure that many municipal governments, particularly school districts, could tighten their belts. But in the end, I doubt there is as much disparity between local taxes here and in other states as people anecdotally believe. The real problem remains our State government in Albany. Until they stop spending money like there is no limit to our resources, we will continue to see our State lose people and opportunity.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
More D&C Condescension on Consolidation
The Democrat & Chronicle reverted to its condescending best form today with its editorial entitled "high taxes, duplicated services are connected". The editorial opens with this thoughtful and reasonable premise:
"Frankly, New Yorkers continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths on getting the high cost of living in this state under control."
Not satisfied with one insult to its readers, the editorial went on to opine:
"New Yorkers, who support 4,200 taxing entities statewide, need to either start supporting streamlined, more efficient government operations or stop whining about the high taxes they pay."
Quite frankly, there is little reason to accept the D&C view that local government is too expensive. I am a fairly typical New York taxpayer. The dollar amount of taxes I pay to the Town of Gates comprises less than 8% of the total dollar amount of taxes I pay for State Income taxes, County taxes, School taxes, and Town taxes combined. That does not include sales and excise taxes paid to the State.
From the Town of Gates, I get a Police Department which responds within scant minutes for emergencies, provides a four or five car, 24/7 road patrol, and which takes reports in person, a Highway Department that paves, repairs, and plows my streets, picks up my leaves in the fall and my yard debris every week, a Recreation Department that provides beautiful Town Parks and recreation programs for youths and senior citizens, a library that has been seen as second to none in the suburbs, and provides dozens of other services, as well.
All of that for less than 8% of my total tax expense! I'd say that I get 60- 70% of the services I value and enjoy from my Town government. That's quite a return on my investment.
The D&C doesn't get it. We "whiners" aren't whining about paying for the host of services we get from our local governments. We want the State to stop spending lavish amounts on numerous programs and projects of dubious merit and for which we get little value for our money.
The other big thing the D&C seems to forget is the thing called "the consent of the governed". We are entitled to have the government and services we want. Citizens have a big say in the nature and cost of local government, which is generally low cost and high value. We have virtually no say in our State government, which is a Byzantine, bloated, and dysfunctional entity. Don't lecture us about our local government until the really costly levels of government clean up their acts.
The D&C criticised the people of Holley for agreeing to spend $1.00 per day to have local police. That's only about 20-25 cents more than it costs to buy the D&C every day. Given a choice, I know which one I'd give up.
"Frankly, New Yorkers continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths on getting the high cost of living in this state under control."
Not satisfied with one insult to its readers, the editorial went on to opine:
"New Yorkers, who support 4,200 taxing entities statewide, need to either start supporting streamlined, more efficient government operations or stop whining about the high taxes they pay."
Quite frankly, there is little reason to accept the D&C view that local government is too expensive. I am a fairly typical New York taxpayer. The dollar amount of taxes I pay to the Town of Gates comprises less than 8% of the total dollar amount of taxes I pay for State Income taxes, County taxes, School taxes, and Town taxes combined. That does not include sales and excise taxes paid to the State.
From the Town of Gates, I get a Police Department which responds within scant minutes for emergencies, provides a four or five car, 24/7 road patrol, and which takes reports in person, a Highway Department that paves, repairs, and plows my streets, picks up my leaves in the fall and my yard debris every week, a Recreation Department that provides beautiful Town Parks and recreation programs for youths and senior citizens, a library that has been seen as second to none in the suburbs, and provides dozens of other services, as well.
All of that for less than 8% of my total tax expense! I'd say that I get 60- 70% of the services I value and enjoy from my Town government. That's quite a return on my investment.
The D&C doesn't get it. We "whiners" aren't whining about paying for the host of services we get from our local governments. We want the State to stop spending lavish amounts on numerous programs and projects of dubious merit and for which we get little value for our money.
The other big thing the D&C seems to forget is the thing called "the consent of the governed". We are entitled to have the government and services we want. Citizens have a big say in the nature and cost of local government, which is generally low cost and high value. We have virtually no say in our State government, which is a Byzantine, bloated, and dysfunctional entity. Don't lecture us about our local government until the really costly levels of government clean up their acts.
The D&C criticised the people of Holley for agreeing to spend $1.00 per day to have local police. That's only about 20-25 cents more than it costs to buy the D&C every day. Given a choice, I know which one I'd give up.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
D&C Goes Metro .... Again
My son and I look at the newspaper together most mornings. He thinks the funniest section is the comics. I, on the other hand, get most of my amusement from the editorial page.
This morning the D&C had its 7th or 8th or umpteenth (I've lost count) piece on government consolidation/metro government. Today they used their editorial entitled "No more one-shots" as their vehicle for promoting their number one agenda item. Ostensibly, this editorial was calling on the Brooks administration to be careful about selling off County resources to get one-time cash infusions to close the remaining budget gap this year.
But, of course, the D&C editorialists could not pass up the opportunity to throw in a metro pitch. The editorial goes on to propose that the County government needs to look for savings through "major government consolidations". Specifically mentioned were "public safety services" and "fire districts", which, by the way, in the opinion of the D&C, "are too numerous" in Monroe County.
So lets see, Monroe County will save money through "major" consolidation of public safety services and fire districts. I really wish the editorial had gone on to explain how that would work. To the best of my knowledge, the County does not provide fire fighting services directly. So how could consolidation (elimination?) of fire districts help the County reduce its budget?
What about public safety services? Well, we have a Sheriff's road patrol, the RPD, and six towns have their own police. If all public safety services are consolidated into a larger Sheriff's department, the County would have to spend more money. Of course, as an alternative, there could be a new "government" entity (the Rochester Regional Metro Police District?). Presumably, all county residents would pay for that service, but, I guess the County budget would be reduced since there would no longer be a Sheriff's road patrol. I have serious doubts as to whether the cost per taxpayer would go down; I am certain police service in Gates (and in the other towns with local police) would be dramatically reduced.
The D&C can't bring itself to tell the truth. Their real concerns about County budget issues; the F.A.I.R. plan; local government consolidation; "smart growth" vs. "urban sprawl"; and on and on, and on, are really all about one thing; to wit: saving the City of Rochester from the utter failure of all of its operations over the past 30+ years. Metro government is the only way
the City of Rochester can afford to continue. Metro government's purpose is to suck up suburban resources and reallocate them to the City.
It would be a fair issue for a debate. Too bad the D&C is afraid to debate that issue honestly.
This morning the D&C had its 7th or 8th or umpteenth (I've lost count) piece on government consolidation/metro government. Today they used their editorial entitled "No more one-shots" as their vehicle for promoting their number one agenda item. Ostensibly, this editorial was calling on the Brooks administration to be careful about selling off County resources to get one-time cash infusions to close the remaining budget gap this year.
But, of course, the D&C editorialists could not pass up the opportunity to throw in a metro pitch. The editorial goes on to propose that the County government needs to look for savings through "major government consolidations". Specifically mentioned were "public safety services" and "fire districts", which, by the way, in the opinion of the D&C, "are too numerous" in Monroe County.
So lets see, Monroe County will save money through "major" consolidation of public safety services and fire districts. I really wish the editorial had gone on to explain how that would work. To the best of my knowledge, the County does not provide fire fighting services directly. So how could consolidation (elimination?) of fire districts help the County reduce its budget?
What about public safety services? Well, we have a Sheriff's road patrol, the RPD, and six towns have their own police. If all public safety services are consolidated into a larger Sheriff's department, the County would have to spend more money. Of course, as an alternative, there could be a new "government" entity (the Rochester Regional Metro Police District?). Presumably, all county residents would pay for that service, but, I guess the County budget would be reduced since there would no longer be a Sheriff's road patrol. I have serious doubts as to whether the cost per taxpayer would go down; I am certain police service in Gates (and in the other towns with local police) would be dramatically reduced.
The D&C can't bring itself to tell the truth. Their real concerns about County budget issues; the F.A.I.R. plan; local government consolidation; "smart growth" vs. "urban sprawl"; and on and on, and on, are really all about one thing; to wit: saving the City of Rochester from the utter failure of all of its operations over the past 30+ years. Metro government is the only way
the City of Rochester can afford to continue. Metro government's purpose is to suck up suburban resources and reallocate them to the City.
It would be a fair issue for a debate. Too bad the D&C is afraid to debate that issue honestly.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Election Over, D&C Returns To #1 Agenda Item
Namely, local government consolidation.
Yesterday's Op-Ed piece on the "courageous" effort in the Village of Holley to consider the abolition of its police force contained another dig at Gates residents, who were previously admonished by D&C editorialists for wanting to have both our own police force and lower government expenditures. This time the paper effectively denigrated the Gates Police as being of little use beyond unlocking cars in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
I have it on good authority that the Chief of Police and many of his officers are none too pleased. I expect that we will soon see a rebuttal (if the paper will print it). The D&C did not print an LTE from the president of the Gates Keystone Club critical of last year's anti-Gates PD editorial.
The D&C just doesn't like dissenting voices, particularly on the government consolidation issue. Jim Lawrence and Tom Tobin are determined to push this point as far as possible.
This is their signature agenda item, as I have previously noted. Expect more of the same. Lots more.
Yesterday's Op-Ed piece on the "courageous" effort in the Village of Holley to consider the abolition of its police force contained another dig at Gates residents, who were previously admonished by D&C editorialists for wanting to have both our own police force and lower government expenditures. This time the paper effectively denigrated the Gates Police as being of little use beyond unlocking cars in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
I have it on good authority that the Chief of Police and many of his officers are none too pleased. I expect that we will soon see a rebuttal (if the paper will print it). The D&C did not print an LTE from the president of the Gates Keystone Club critical of last year's anti-Gates PD editorial.
The D&C just doesn't like dissenting voices, particularly on the government consolidation issue. Jim Lawrence and Tom Tobin are determined to push this point as far as possible.
This is their signature agenda item, as I have previously noted. Expect more of the same. Lots more.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Consolidation Questions
Did you note the poll accompanying the Democrat & Chronicle's front page story on Maggie Brooks?
One of the questions was:
"If it meant a substantial savings in your tax bill, would you support or oppose merging some layers of county municipal and township governments?"
70% supported merger under those circumstances. Gee, what a surprise. I mean, after all, even I would agree to that statement. But I'd have to say a follow-up question would have been warranted. Something like this:
If you said "support" to the question above, would you still support merger if it meant significant reductions in local services, such as, police service?
If that follow-up had been asked, the 70% of support would have evaporated quite quickly. I wonder why they asked the first question but not the second? Oh, yeah, the D&C commissioned the poll and their metro government agenda would not be furthered by asking the right questions.
One of the questions was:
"If it meant a substantial savings in your tax bill, would you support or oppose merging some layers of county municipal and township governments?"
70% supported merger under those circumstances. Gee, what a surprise. I mean, after all, even I would agree to that statement. But I'd have to say a follow-up question would have been warranted. Something like this:
If you said "support" to the question above, would you still support merger if it meant significant reductions in local services, such as, police service?
If that follow-up had been asked, the 70% of support would have evaporated quite quickly. I wonder why they asked the first question but not the second? Oh, yeah, the D&C commissioned the poll and their metro government agenda would not be furthered by asking the right questions.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Metro Redux
The Democrat and Chronicle is in full agenda mode. As I wrote in a March post, the D&C is on a mission to resurrect Metro government as part of its campaign to damage Maggie Brooks and "save" the City of Rochester.
We have seen a parade of articles on the wasteful, duplicative, and costly nature of local governments. First the article on tax rates, then the attacks on special districts, especially fire districts. Now we have the article on Town auto fleets and "take-home" cars. The purpose of all of these articles is the same; to convince us that we should give up our nostalgic but out-dated affinity for local government.
I am sure that reasonable people would agree that consolidation of some local government services makes sense. There are a number of examples of this type of inter-municipal cooperation in Monroe County. But the D&C and their "expert" friends at the Center for Governmental Research are suggesting something much more far-reaching. They want to eliminate Towns entirely in favor of Metro government. This is their big solution to our problem of over-taxation in New York.
The problem with this theory is simple. The main cause of over-taxation in New York emanates from our State government in Albany, not our local governments. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the State Government is dysfunctional and out-of-control. It is certainly beyond the control of average citizens like us. The State Legislature has gerrymandered itself into fiefdoms making incumbency a virtual guaranty of victory in November. These entrenched politicos have no need to restrain themselves from voting to spend as much as possible to try to further ensure their re-election.
But, do we read a series of articles critical of the State government. No, instead we have a sustained effort to convince us that the one level of government we do control should be done away with. It stands logic on its head!
Can most of us name more than a handful of State programs which we really want or we believe are efficient and beneficial? On the other hand, we all know the specific services provided by our local governments as well as the costs of those services. We have all been to Town meetings where this or that program or issue was debated. The will of the people carries the day most of the time in that setting. Can we say the same for our State government? Is it a good idea to eliminate local government in favor of a larger, more distant, less personal, regional or metro government? I certainly don't think so.
So why, then, does the D&C push the metro agenda? There appear to be three reasons.
First, the editorial board of the D&C is a basically liberal group. Liberals always support bigger government. Bigger government can "take care" of all of our problems (at least in liberals' minds).
Second, the D&C knows that the City of Rochester is broken, perhaps beyond repair. The only way to save the City is to bring in new resources of people and tax revenue. Since the efforts to bring new residents into the city have failed, the D&C's solution is to "take the city to the people". A metro government would, by necessity, be a City focused government, drawing resources out of the former suburbs into the central city where years of mis-management and neglect have left vast and largely intractable problems.
Finally, there is the political aspect. A metro government would break down the City-suburb political barriers. This would allow the Democrats to take control of the entire County of Monroe. I hope I'm not surprising you readers by suggesting that the D&C favors Democrats!
Thirty-odd years ago, the voters of Monroe County rejected the first try at metro government by voting down a metro police plan. The D&C has been firing the opening salvos of the next metro battle. I can only hope that people see through the agenda and vote to keep the government they want.
We have seen a parade of articles on the wasteful, duplicative, and costly nature of local governments. First the article on tax rates, then the attacks on special districts, especially fire districts. Now we have the article on Town auto fleets and "take-home" cars. The purpose of all of these articles is the same; to convince us that we should give up our nostalgic but out-dated affinity for local government.
I am sure that reasonable people would agree that consolidation of some local government services makes sense. There are a number of examples of this type of inter-municipal cooperation in Monroe County. But the D&C and their "expert" friends at the Center for Governmental Research are suggesting something much more far-reaching. They want to eliminate Towns entirely in favor of Metro government. This is their big solution to our problem of over-taxation in New York.
The problem with this theory is simple. The main cause of over-taxation in New York emanates from our State government in Albany, not our local governments. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the State Government is dysfunctional and out-of-control. It is certainly beyond the control of average citizens like us. The State Legislature has gerrymandered itself into fiefdoms making incumbency a virtual guaranty of victory in November. These entrenched politicos have no need to restrain themselves from voting to spend as much as possible to try to further ensure their re-election.
But, do we read a series of articles critical of the State government. No, instead we have a sustained effort to convince us that the one level of government we do control should be done away with. It stands logic on its head!
Can most of us name more than a handful of State programs which we really want or we believe are efficient and beneficial? On the other hand, we all know the specific services provided by our local governments as well as the costs of those services. We have all been to Town meetings where this or that program or issue was debated. The will of the people carries the day most of the time in that setting. Can we say the same for our State government? Is it a good idea to eliminate local government in favor of a larger, more distant, less personal, regional or metro government? I certainly don't think so.
So why, then, does the D&C push the metro agenda? There appear to be three reasons.
First, the editorial board of the D&C is a basically liberal group. Liberals always support bigger government. Bigger government can "take care" of all of our problems (at least in liberals' minds).
Second, the D&C knows that the City of Rochester is broken, perhaps beyond repair. The only way to save the City is to bring in new resources of people and tax revenue. Since the efforts to bring new residents into the city have failed, the D&C's solution is to "take the city to the people". A metro government would, by necessity, be a City focused government, drawing resources out of the former suburbs into the central city where years of mis-management and neglect have left vast and largely intractable problems.
Finally, there is the political aspect. A metro government would break down the City-suburb political barriers. This would allow the Democrats to take control of the entire County of Monroe. I hope I'm not surprising you readers by suggesting that the D&C favors Democrats!
Thirty-odd years ago, the voters of Monroe County rejected the first try at metro government by voting down a metro police plan. The D&C has been firing the opening salvos of the next metro battle. I can only hope that people see through the agenda and vote to keep the government they want.
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Consent of the Governed
The Sunday edition of the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle ran a front page story and lead editorial regarding local property tax rates and their connection to the Monroe County budget deficit. This was the clearest outline yet offered by the D&C as to their 2007 campaign against GOP County Executive Maggie Brooks. This year the D&C is linking its efforts to weaken Ms. Brooks with its long-term metro government agenda.
The property tax rate chart is intended to convince us that we pay too much in property taxes. The explanation for our over-taxation: unnecessary and duplicative services provided by unneeded layers of government. The connection to Ms. Brooks and the County Budget? The sales tax sharing mechanism that "subsidizes" those pesky local governments. If we did away with that sharing, the County budget will balance and those municipalities and their residents will be left to make the "hard choices" they have been spared from making.
"Hard choices" is code for raising taxes or cutting services. In this context, it means facing the inevitable and obvious (at least to the Solon's on the D&C Editorial Board) solution of metro government.
Nowhere should this solution be more obvious than in the towns with police departments. Boy, are those town residents foolish! The Sheriff's Department is good enough for most towns, why not the five with their own police?
Is it possible that those town residents are willing to pay a premium for enhanced service? Is it hard to accept that those residents doubt they will get equivalent service if they give up their own police? Further, do the editorialists and government experts believe that the 250 or so local police will not be replaced by new hires in the Sheriff's Department (or the Monroe Metro Police Department)? Will there really be big savings? As a Gates resident, I am sure of one thing. There will not be 4 or 5 cars patrolling Gates on each shift as there are now. The new Sheriff's (or Metro) hires will largely be working in the City of Rochester, not Gates (or Chili or Henrietta or Greece, or any other suburb).
I think its quite reasonable for people to make choices about the things their tax money goes to. It has something to do with government being empowered by the consent of the governed. I know that Gates residents (and residents of other towns in Monroe County and NY State) are over-taxed. But we are not over-taxed because of our town government.
No, we are over- taxed because our State government is completely beyond our control. The State Legislature is not a representative body responsible to the people. Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno are able to operate without any concern about what "the people" want. Even vaunted programs such as the STAR program are hoaxes. The STAR program merely shifts who pays the tax and allows our school districts to spend with impunity. Nothing could have more clearly exposed the chicanery that is our State government than last year's tax rebate, which was tantamount to bribing us with our own money.
Yet you would have us cede our local control of our lives to a new, bigger, "local" (metro) government. Sorry, Mr. Lawrence, Ms. Magnuson, Mr. Tobin, Ms. Wagner and the rest of the D&C Editorial Board. The best government is still the government closest to the people. The Supervisors and Town Board members in our local Towns are far more accountable to us than our State representatives or those prospective representatives of the metro government you long for.You are wrong to criticise town residents who want to keep their local services and police. It is, after all, our money. More importantly, this is, after all, still a democracy. We are still allowed to choose the type and amount of government we want.
You go ahead with your agenda, though. Take your best shot at Ms. Brooks (for all of the good it will do you). You should note, however, that your view has few supporters outside the City of Rochester. Oh, yes, the other part of your agenda; save the poorly run and nearly broke City at any expense (or, more accurately, at the expense of suburban towns and residents). I can't help but notice that while you pontificate about wasteful and unnecessary town governments, special districts, and the like, the City is always exempt. No criticism about blowing millions (12, wasn't it?) on opening a polluted beach that was closed more than half the season. I don't remember reading any articles railing against the uncounted dollars spent on the High Falls Entertainment District. That was money well spent! The Ferry is too easy a target to even mention, although, it is interesting that there has been so little said about the 10 months and counting since the "sale" of same.
The D&C can't change its ways any more than a leopard can change its spots. Look for more of the same in the weeks ahead. The agenda will be served. Like so many "elites", our local media members know what is best for us. They will keep trying to convince us of the error of our ways. I hope town residents decide to keep the type of government and the range of services that they want despite the D&C drumbeat.
The property tax rate chart is intended to convince us that we pay too much in property taxes. The explanation for our over-taxation: unnecessary and duplicative services provided by unneeded layers of government. The connection to Ms. Brooks and the County Budget? The sales tax sharing mechanism that "subsidizes" those pesky local governments. If we did away with that sharing, the County budget will balance and those municipalities and their residents will be left to make the "hard choices" they have been spared from making.
"Hard choices" is code for raising taxes or cutting services. In this context, it means facing the inevitable and obvious (at least to the Solon's on the D&C Editorial Board) solution of metro government.
Nowhere should this solution be more obvious than in the towns with police departments. Boy, are those town residents foolish! The Sheriff's Department is good enough for most towns, why not the five with their own police?
Is it possible that those town residents are willing to pay a premium for enhanced service? Is it hard to accept that those residents doubt they will get equivalent service if they give up their own police? Further, do the editorialists and government experts believe that the 250 or so local police will not be replaced by new hires in the Sheriff's Department (or the Monroe Metro Police Department)? Will there really be big savings? As a Gates resident, I am sure of one thing. There will not be 4 or 5 cars patrolling Gates on each shift as there are now. The new Sheriff's (or Metro) hires will largely be working in the City of Rochester, not Gates (or Chili or Henrietta or Greece, or any other suburb).
I think its quite reasonable for people to make choices about the things their tax money goes to. It has something to do with government being empowered by the consent of the governed. I know that Gates residents (and residents of other towns in Monroe County and NY State) are over-taxed. But we are not over-taxed because of our town government.
No, we are over- taxed because our State government is completely beyond our control. The State Legislature is not a representative body responsible to the people. Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno are able to operate without any concern about what "the people" want. Even vaunted programs such as the STAR program are hoaxes. The STAR program merely shifts who pays the tax and allows our school districts to spend with impunity. Nothing could have more clearly exposed the chicanery that is our State government than last year's tax rebate, which was tantamount to bribing us with our own money.
Yet you would have us cede our local control of our lives to a new, bigger, "local" (metro) government. Sorry, Mr. Lawrence, Ms. Magnuson, Mr. Tobin, Ms. Wagner and the rest of the D&C Editorial Board. The best government is still the government closest to the people. The Supervisors and Town Board members in our local Towns are far more accountable to us than our State representatives or those prospective representatives of the metro government you long for.You are wrong to criticise town residents who want to keep their local services and police. It is, after all, our money. More importantly, this is, after all, still a democracy. We are still allowed to choose the type and amount of government we want.
You go ahead with your agenda, though. Take your best shot at Ms. Brooks (for all of the good it will do you). You should note, however, that your view has few supporters outside the City of Rochester. Oh, yes, the other part of your agenda; save the poorly run and nearly broke City at any expense (or, more accurately, at the expense of suburban towns and residents). I can't help but notice that while you pontificate about wasteful and unnecessary town governments, special districts, and the like, the City is always exempt. No criticism about blowing millions (12, wasn't it?) on opening a polluted beach that was closed more than half the season. I don't remember reading any articles railing against the uncounted dollars spent on the High Falls Entertainment District. That was money well spent! The Ferry is too easy a target to even mention, although, it is interesting that there has been so little said about the 10 months and counting since the "sale" of same.
The D&C can't change its ways any more than a leopard can change its spots. Look for more of the same in the weeks ahead. The agenda will be served. Like so many "elites", our local media members know what is best for us. They will keep trying to convince us of the error of our ways. I hope town residents decide to keep the type of government and the range of services that they want despite the D&C drumbeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
