Carson City is actually an independent city - Ormsby county was dissolved after the consolidation. Baltimore and St Louis are separate from the counties that share their names. There are also places where the county still technically exists but there is a consolidated city-county government - these are much more common than independent cities. And then there is NYC which consists of five counties that are mostly meaningless* and which do not have separate governments.
The one thing these creatures have in common is that there is not a county-levied tax and also one levied by the city. With independent cities, you are either in a city or a county and will only be taxed by the one you are in. With consolidated city-counties, city and county share the same government and that one government will levy the taxes. And in NYC, of course, since the counties don’t have separate governments, there are no separate taxes levied by the county.
There a few elected officials on the county level, such as the various District Attorney’s and Commissioners of Jurors , but everything else normally organized on a county level ( such as the Department of Health or Social Services is a city-level agency)
I’m not grasping the difference. There is no county for Carson to share a government with. When Ormsby county was dissolved a couple unincorporated settlements – Sierra Vista for one – found themselves part of the city.
When I was a a government office I noticed a letter case behind the clerk with a cubby hole for each county. I was amused to see Carson City was still between Nye and Pershing.
Right.
So you have an (or a series of) ordinance passed by city hall for the betterment of the urban 50%+ (or 30% or 10%). When it comes to ratification at the state level the majority votes it down and you think this is an example of the rural folk deliberately screwing over the urban?
Might I suggest that’s a rather Trumpian view of how democracy works.
Carson City is an independent city, like the ones in Virginia ( and Baltimore and St. Louis) There is no county for Carson City to share a government with, as Ormsby County was dissolved. San Francisco is officially “The City and County of San Francisco” - the county of San Francisco still nominally exists, although it doesn’t have a separate government from the city.
Baltimore is an independent city. It used to be the county seat of Baltimore County, back in the 19th century. I don’t know if there are any others in Maryland, though.
Those are usually known as city-county mergers and there’s a fair number of them: Honolulu, Nashville, and Jacksonville come to mind, and I’m sure there are others.
Yes.
For example - If the people in a city say “we need bike stands” and they pass a city law that says “Inside the city we’re going to build bike stands. And city taxes will be used to pay for it.” So, if you’re not in the city - this bike stand has nothing to do with you. You’ll never see it. You’ll never drive by one. No one will make you use it. It will not take away any of your sidewalk. Not one red cent of your taxes will go to pay for this bike stand. There is no intersection of your life or money and the bikestand project.
Voting for an initiative banning all new bike stands statewide is weird.
So it’s OK to block a law that benefits some people, because there’s a small probability that it might hurt other people in some unknown way at some undetermined point in the future?
If the majority vote make that determination, for whatever reason, for whatever benefit lost or gained, for whatever probability then that’s the way the democratic cooke crumbles.
If 60% of voters want bike sheds and they don’t win the vote well that’s misapproportion and/or gerrymander. That’s a legitimate gripe.
If 50% of the population wants bike sheds and they don’t win the vote because 60% of the voters don’t, because they think bike sheds are an affront to humanity, or the resources could be better deployed, or the precedent could force communities to build bike sheds on every cross road or don’t know what a bike shed is that’s Democracy in action.
Sometimes the other guys win, even if not on merit.
Those who do want these amenities need to lift their game on selling the message that this is a good initiative.
From my observations when visiting my rural in-laws and from actual posts in this thread, there is very much often an attitude that the country is inherently “better” than the city. By extension, they also tend to believe everything “Republican” or “Conservative” automatically is more in line with their values than “Democrats” or “Liberals”.
So for example, my mother in law blames “Obamacare” for her losing her job as a medical secretary. As opposed to what I expect to be the actual reason in that she was in her 70s and by her own accounts her doctor boss was a real asshole and on at least several occasions she exhibited behavior that I, as a manager, would have considered “insubordinate” to the point of being fireable.
Similarly, I also hear a lot of rural people complain about ordinances related to things like construction or zoning laws. The argument being that it’s their property so the bureaucrats up in Albany, Trenton, Hartford or wherever have no business interfering with their affairs.
I’m all for democracy. However, I also know that it can be used to screw people over, and saying “Well, that’s just democracy in action” is a bullshit answer. Being a jerk by democratic means is still being a jerk.
They’re not saying “I don’t want a bike shed and I don’t want my money to be paid for bike sheds.” They’re saying “I don’t want those other people to be able to buy a bike shed.” Preventing other people from spending their own money on things that don’t harm you may or may not be democratic, but if it is, it is a classic case of the tyranny of the “majority” (legislative in this case).
Case in point is minimum wage laws for cities. Several cities have tried to do this only to be blocked by their state legislators. (Ironically. Many of those same people who support screwing over the urban folk would support “states rights” as if there is something magically correct about the state level of independent power versus the federal or city level.)
If a higher minimum wage or better bike transportation fails, the city is out some money, no harm done to the rural folks who want to take away their local power. If they succeed, though, it will show everyone that the urban folk can succeed at something, which would be unacceptable, so they don’t allow it.
What’s your non-bullshit alternative?
Anarchy, money, intimidation?
‘Cause if the election slogan is:
“I want a bike shed, fuck the rest of you“
YMMV but I think it could do with a bit of work.
Compare:
“our guy won the popular vote so they should be POTUS”
“I want bike sheds, even if the majority of voters don’t”.
Lacking in a touch in consistency, don’t you think?
Are they, or are you putting your words in their mouths?
Those dumbfuck hicks who can’t see the advantage to your kids?
I got no answers but I think that until you can determine how to phrase the question so the affirmative is in their interest, or at least no perceived disadvantage you seem likely to need to go without your bike sheds.
Saying that the city is not allowed to buy bike stands is not saying “I don’t want those other people to be able to buy a bike stand” is hardly putting words in people’s mouths.
No, the ballot initiative slogan would be: “We need bike stands, and we will pay for them with city taxes.”
And the anti-slogan would be: “Fuck you, you can’t have them.”
We are not talking about the fine points of democracy here, we are talking about, originally, the idea of urban voters screwing over rural folk, none have been found. Unless somehow the city using its own money to put in bike stands is somehow screwing over those ruralites, then they are not being hurt at all. However, the ruralites overriding the city’s initiative to use its own money to put them in is them screwing over the city folk.
So yes, it would be democratic, but it would also be an example of rural folk voting to screw over urban folk.
By your reasoning, in a state that has a majority population that lives in urban areas, if they vote to screw over the rural areas, that would just be democracy in action, and should receive no criticism?
Yes, that would indeed be democracy in action. Nor would it be immune from criticism. That’s my right in a democracy, even when in a minority.
But if you want to win a vote when in the notional minority you need to be politically astute enough to frame the issue in terms which will win majority support.
On this side of the puddle, in a highly urbanised society where in essentially every regional local government area the population (and votes) of the towns outweighs the farming community and in turn the regional electorates are outnumbered and outvoted by those in the cities. So if a remote community needs one doctor to staff the only medical facility within an hours drive while another 2 billion dollar 500 bed state of the art complex is being built in the capital city a couple of hours flight away you need to play what cards you have with astute political skill.
You can’t always get what you want, but if you try you might get what you need. You know, somebody should write a song about that.
The biggest example of urban folk voting to screw over rural folk
Are the elephants in the room.
As the metro areas go, so does the state!
Is it fair that the Chicago political machine rules the entire state of Illinois which is 95% rural?
Is it fair that the Denver metro area (mostly immigrant Californians) rules the entire state of Colorado?
Likewise for the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
Is it no wonder that Northern California wants to break away from the rule of San Francisco?
Democracy in action run amok!
The urban metro areas are out of touch and don’t really care!
They have little knowledge of what rural America does in terms putting food on the shelves and manufactured products in the stores.
Now the 1856 president Franklin Pierce was supportive of both the urban folk and rural folk by signing the Guano Island Act to obtain supplies of fertilizer for farmers to grow the food for the burgeoning cities of the time. However American imperialism was not enough to maintain Democrat control due to Franklin Pierce’s support of slavery which gave rise to the Republican party.
Trump is empathic to both urban and rural needs and is best for America if it is to remain a Republic and not a despotic single party system!
