# Cities w/o suburbs: Every metro area in America should have consolidated metro government **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 5, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395 "2013-08-05T14:59:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/161 "2013-08-08T01:17:08Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > [Suburb - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb) > > A lot of people define suburb in different ways. Under some definitions you can be considered to live in a suburb even if you’re within the boundaries of the city. Most people seem to go with a definition of suburb that is any area outside of core city which may include other municipalities or unincorporated areas but is within the same metropolitan area. That wiki definition is pretty much exactly what I’m talking about. It might be in the city or outside the city, it might be mixed use or it might be strictly residential. People might work there or they might work in the city. It’s mostly single family houses, which leaves out both parts of large cities and farmland but not much else. Sure,most of the country is suburbia under that definition but that definition ties together a lot of places that have only one thing in common - single family houses. But there are a lot of differences between an area of single family houses on half acre lots in a strictly residential area and one of single family homes on 2000 sq foot lots in a mixed use area and calling them both “suburbs” makes the word almost useless. Whether you believe sprawl is a problem or not, an area of 2000 square foot lots where people can work close to home is not going to have the same pros and cons as a strictly residential community of half-acre lots where most people drive twenty or thirty miles to work. And it doesn’t really matter what the actual pros and cons are- those two areas will be almost opposite of each other and people who like one won’t like the other. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/162 "2013-08-08T01:49:56Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > And it doesn’t really matter what the actual pros and cons are- those two areas will be almost opposite of each other and people who like one won’t like the other. So you can see the folly of applying a one-size-fits-all solution to the problems of our core cities. The problems of Chicago aren’t necessarily shared by Dallas, Detroit or Denver. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/163 "2013-08-08T03:12:20Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > BTW, and I mean this in all seriousness, it isn’t just white males that live in suburbs No, but it is disproportionately white, suburban and rural males over 40 who take the positions adopted by my interlocutors in this thread. One can always find exceptions, of course, but a random sample of young urban Latinas is unlikely to dig up many who rant in this Glenn Beckesque manner. Again, it’s more like what Neal Stephenson observed, way back in 1992: > [@](#): > > All these beefy Caucasians with guns. Get enough of them together,looking for the America they always believed they’d grow up in, and they glom together like overcooked rice, form integral, starchy little units. With their power tools, portable generators, weapons, four-wheel-drive vehicles, and personal computers, they are like beavers hyped up on crystal meth, manic engineers without a blueprint, chewing through the wilderness, building things and abandoning them, altering the flow of mighty rivers and then moving on because the place ain’t what it used to be. The byproduct of the lifestyle is polluted rivers, greenhouse effect, spouse abuse, televangelists, and serial killers. But as long as you have that four-wheel-drive vehicle and can keep driving north, you can sustain it, keep moving just quickly enough to stay one step ahead of your own waste stream. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/164 "2013-08-08T03:41:16Z")
There may be some isolated truth to that but there are for most stereotypes. There is a word for people that make bold assumptions about individuals based on their race or the socioeconomic status they have but I suppose that only applies when it is directed against approved groups in the Progressive orthodoxy. All I saw was a hate message that could be rewritten in similar form to apply to any stereotype. Is that really what it is all about? You and **BrainGlutton** are either going to get married or end up hating each other. He has been our radical Progressive whipping boy for years but now you are showing up trying to outdo him in the most outlandish way possible. This can’t end well. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/165 "2013-08-08T04:12:30Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > There is a word for people that make bold assumptions about individuals based on their race or the socioeconomic status they have but I suppose that only applies when it is directed against approved groups in the Progressive orthodoxy. You’d better believe it only applies then. > [@](#): > > You and **BrainGlutton** are either going to get married or end up hating each other. He has been our radical Progressive whipping boy for years but now you are showing up trying to outdo him in the most outlandish way possible. This can’t end well. I am already married. 😛 **BG** does have his(?) head on straight though. Not sure what you mean by “the most outlandish way possible”. Also, I didn’t really just show up. I have been more active recently, but I was first an active member of the SDMB when it was on AOL back in the 90s; and I was also active on AFCA for a couple years around Y2K. I think I first posted on this web version of the SDMB about a decade ago. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/166 "2013-08-08T04:26:21Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > It doesn’t matter Obama thinks about about sprawl. Of course it does, and you know it. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/167 "2013-08-08T04:53:37Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > No, but it is disproportionately white, suburban and rural males over 40 who take the positions adopted by my interlocutors in this thread. Remember, it’s the proposal cited by the OP that would impose suburban white governance upon the inner cities, not the opponents in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/168 "2013-08-08T05:01:12Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Remember, it’s the proposal cited by the OP that would impose suburban white governance upon the inner cities, not the opponents in this thread. Which isn’t a bad thing-hence why I support it. The irony is that this will give the white surburbanite bourgeois class the opportunity to correct all they denounce about corruption in the inner cities. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/169 "2013-08-08T05:08:58Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Which isn’t a bad thing-hence why I support it. The irony is that this will give the white surburbanite bourgeois class the opportunity to correct all they denounce about corruption in the inner cities. True. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/170 "2013-08-08T06:25:54Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > You must not have looked at the election returns. The white male suburbanite is the one getting increasingly getting outnumbered. Obama says sprawl is over, **and his voters, the majority, smile and nod**. The consolidated metro government in the Twin Cities is a **reality** , not just some pie in the sky proposal. We are winning, outside the South and the Plains, and we’ll consolidate our federal strength and deal with those regions too, in good time. Your apparent racism is refreshingly open. However, if you looked at the election returns you would have noticed that there are more Republican govenors than Democrat governors and more legislative houses with a Republican majority than a Democrat majority. You’ve probably noticed by now that only the U.S. Senate has a Democrat majority while the U.S. House has a majority of Republicans. While a majority of the people who bothered to vote voted for Obama, all other political races are local. Obama may have said that the sprawl is over but I don’t see how he, or you, are going to force people to live in Big City when they’ve chosen not to. What are Obama’s, or his smiling and nodding minions, chances of using eminent domain or a national guard or a private/government security forces to meld the 25,000 cities in the U.S.A. into 12,500 or fewer cities? Or will all of Obama’s subjects willing submit to giving their tax dollars, not to the city of their choice, but to their new Big City of Obama’s choosing? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/171 "2013-08-08T10:03:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Your apparent racism is refreshingly open. However, if you looked at the election returns you would have noticed that there are more Republican govenors than Democrat governors and more legislative houses with a Republican majority than a Democrat majority. Due to the preponderence of rural Red states. > [@](#): > > You’ve probably noticed by now that only the U.S. Senate has a Democrat majority while the U.S. House has a majority of Republicans. A look at the results will shew that the majority of votes were cast for the Democrats in the races for the House of Representatives but due to the concentration of Democrats and Republicans and some gerrymandering, this was not reflected in the seat totals. > [@](#): > > While a majority of the people who bothered to vote voted for Obama, all other political races are local. Actually if everyone eligible to vote, voted Democrats would have a far larger majority. > [@](#): > > Obama may have said that the sprawl is over but I don’t see how he, or you, are going to force people to live in Big City when they’ve chosen not to. > > What are Obama’s, or his smiling and nodding minions, chances of using eminent domain or a national guard or a private/government security forces to meld the 25,000 cities in the U.S.A. into 12,500 or fewer cities? Or will all of Obama’s subjects willing submit to giving their tax dollars, not to the city of their choice, but to their new Big City of Obama’s choosing? Obviously these reforms will not be brought about my government edicts at the point of a bayonet but rather by gradual reforms, first adopted by certain cities, to be followed by others as they see that the system works better. I doubt the President is much concerned over this issue to be frank. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/172 "2013-08-08T11:55:26Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Your apparent racism is refreshingly open. Calling me racist is absurd, but to be racist in the way Glenn Beck uses the word–that I will take as a compliment. > [@doorhinge](#): > > You’ve probably noticed by now that only the U.S. Senate has a Democrat majority while the U.S. House has a majority of Republicans. I also noticed that Democratic House candidates got more votes than did Republicans, just inefficiently distributed; and that the demographic trends clearly favour Democrats. How long do you think you can hold out? The oxygen tank brigade you call your base isn’t getting any younger, you know. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/173 "2013-08-08T13:05:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Firstly, small governments tend to be more responsive and intelligent than large ones. Which state government serves its people better: Vermont or California? > > Secondly, it’s a fact of life in today’s USA that many big-city governments are incredibly corrupt, wasteful, intrusive, and ineffective. Millions of people have moved to the suburbs partially to escape from such governments, so why would they want to be put under the same governments that they fled from? In some areas, there already is, in effect, a consolidated city government in the form of a state government. For example, I would guess that in Massachusetts, the majority of people live in the Boston Metro Area. (Probably in Rhode Island, an expanded Providence would cover the entire state.) Fundamentally, how is the State of Massachusetts different from an expanded Boston? The main difference, it seems to me, is that advocates of expanded cities want to expand the lines enough to increase the tax base and take control of the better schools and city services, but not so much that the core city dwellers lose control over the government. In short, these sorts of proposals strike me as basically a resource grab. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/174 "2013-08-08T13:17:52Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > You can’t always easily tell when you cross the border from Plano into Richardson, Garland or Dallas. Drive from Dallas and it’s not always easy to tell when you make the transition to Addison and then to Carrollton. In the 1980s it was easy to tell when you drove from Allen into Plano but the former has built up so much since then that it’s hard to tell. Hell, I live just south of Richardson (like a mile), and the ONLY way I can tell is that the street signs go from being standard white on green to being white on blue with some stylized “R” for Richardson in the lower-right corner. I have no idea where the Garland border is, even though I know it’s nearby as well- I don’t think the street signs change color. I also couldn’t tell you where Addison begins and ends, except that I think the Farmers Branch signs are maroon, while Addison’s aren’t, and I work in Addison! I’ll also ante up and explain from a personal perspective why people might want to move to the suburbs. I’m a 40 year old white homeowner with a wife and a pre-school age son. I live within the City of Dallas, albeit in the northeast part that was once considered to be the suburbs around 1970. What I see from my perspective is a city government that is not terribly responsive to the needs and wants of residents like myself, and _seems_ to be more concerned with the poor and indigent. So from my perspective, I pay a lot more tax to the city than I get back; I can’t even get those assholes to fix the broken sidewalk in front of the house where the water meter apparently leaks because there’s no money in the budget to fix roads and sidewalks, but by God, they’ll pay for poor people’s house renovations in Fair Park, or they’ll put in rec-centers in south Dallas, or any number of other low-income projects that don’t benefit me, mine or anyone else in my neighborhood, except maybe the Section 8 jerks that seem to blight my area of town (yes, 2 of the highest crime areas in Dallas are the 2 big apartment concentrations nearby, according to the DMN) So that being said, I can totally understand people who want to move to Frisco or Plano or one of the other more affluent suburbs- they both get a marginally better say in how they’re governed and how their tax money’s spent, and more importantly, the community’s values reflect their own- they’ll get their sidewalks fixed when they’re broken (a buddy reported his much less dire sidewalk issues in Frisco and they fixed it within a week). School districts here in Texas are independent, meaning that they frequently overlap with municipalities and counties, but are not beholden to anyone but the state. What this means is that school districts are another variable that people have to deal with; not many people want their kids going to DISD, because it seems like 90% of the focus is on preventing poor students from dropping out or getting pregnant, not on actual academic success. Therefore they go to Richardson, Plano, Frisco, or one of the other nearby school districts, where again, the priorities are more in line with what they want. I think the “suburban lifestyle” tends to be a result of this kind of thing rather than a goal in it’s own right. Why wouldn’t people with the resources not move farther out to do this? In my case, it’s not decided yet- my wife and I don’t really want the “suburban lifestyle”, but nor do we want our kids going to a primarily low-income school with 90% of the kids on free lunches either; the values of their classmates and the focus of the school is going to be different from ours. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/175 "2013-08-08T13:23:45Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Fundamentally, how is the State of Massachusetts different from an expanded Boston? Vastly different, unless you consider an “expanded Boston” to be the whole eastern half of the state. But that’s the point, the eastern half of MA is a complex arrangement of bedroom communities, small towns, agricultural areas, centuries old towns, small cities, resort towns, and established suburbs. Yes, they all have a relationship with Boston, but they aren’t part of Boston. And the entire western part of the state is very different socially, politically, and economically. > **[Massachusetts Population by County](https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/massachusetts/population)** > > Map, bar chart, and table showing Population, 2019 estimate by county. The source of the data is the US Census Bureau. I grew up in a suburb outside of Boston that still has a town meeting to handle local government. Why would that town want to join a metropolitan Boston government where their local voice would be completely lost? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/176 "2013-08-08T13:26:21Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > The main difference, it seems to me, is that advocates of expanded cities want to expand the lines enough to increase the tax base and take control of the better schools and city services, but not so much that the core city dwellers lose control over the government. In short, these sorts of proposals strike me as basically a resource grab. Sorry, I missed this comment. But I agree completely, it’s essentially “we want to reallocate your money to serve our needs, but we’re going to be careful not to let you have any significant political power”. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/177 "2013-08-08T14:04:44Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Sorry, I missed this comment. But I agree completely, it’s essentially “we want to reallocate your money to serve our needs, but we’re going to be careful not to let you have any significant political power”. And a good deal of it is simple busybodying. Some folks hate it when other people don’t do as they are told. Of course that’s not confined only to folks on the left, but ISTM to be at least as common there as on the right. Right-wing busybodies care who you fuck. Left-wing busybodies care where you live, what you drive, what you eat, how much money you make compared to someone else, what history your children are taught, if you own any guns, and are you wearing your helmet. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/178 "2013-08-08T14:37:27Z")
Right wingers don’t care what history children are taught? Really? Have you not heard about the controversies in Texas? Have you not noticed Bill Bennett and Newt Gingrich writing history books for schoolkids? > [@brazil84](#): > > Fundamentally, how is the State of Massachusetts different from an expanded Boston? > > The main difference, it seems to me, is that advocates of expanded cities want to expand the lines enough to increase the tax base and take control of the better schools and city services, but not so much that the core city dwellers lose control over the government. In short, these sorts of proposals strike me as basically a resource grab. Let’s first of all remember that the situation described in the OP is not a “proposal”, but an extant _reality_, which the editorialist is bitterly bemoaning. And that board’s members are appointed by the Minnesota governor, making your objection moot. (It is true that \*\*BG \*\*seems to advocate putting them only under the aegis of the people who live in the MSP metro; maybe that is what you meant by “proposal”.) > [@bump](#): > > I have no idea where the Garland border is, even though I know it’s nearby as well- I don’t think the street signs change color. I also couldn’t tell you where Addison begins and ends, except that I think the Farmers Branch signs are maroon, while Addison’s aren’t, and I work in Addison! You do realise this only strengthens the position that treating these as separate administrative entities does not make sense. (Where I live, cities/towns do not border each other, and there is plenty of farmland or forest between them.) > [@](#): > > I’m a 40 year old white homeowner Of course you are. > [@](#): > > What I see from my perspective is a city government that is not terribly responsive to the needs and wants of residents like myself, and _seems_ to be more concerned with the poor and indigent. So from my perspective, I pay a lot more tax to the city than I get back; I can’t even get those assholes to fix the broken sidewalk in front of the house where the water meter apparently leaks because there’s no money in the budget to fix roads and sidewalks, but by God, they’ll pay for poor people’s house renovations in Fair Park, or they’ll put in rec-centers in south Dallas, or any number of other low-income projects that don’t benefit me, mine or anyone else in my neighborhood, except maybe the Section 8 jerks that seem to blight my area of town Ah yes: those damn poor people, getting all the good stuff! They are so fucking lucky, aren’t they? > [@](#): > > Why wouldn’t people with the resources not move farther out to do this? In my case, it’s not decided yet- my wife and I don’t really want the “suburban lifestyle”, but nor do we want our kids going to a primarily low-income school with 90% of the kids on free lunches either; the values of their classmates and the focus of the school is going to be different from ours. Your post just raises the same questions I keep asking but which your side seems to shy away from addressing directly. In fact, I’m tired of rephrasing them over and over, so I’ll just quote myself and ask again: (1) > [@](#): > > So the bankrupt city could shutter its police stations and schools, and turn off its water supply, and stop collecting garbage, and just let people live in Haiti-like conditions, and that would be fine with you? I get that you are aggressive about feeling no compassion for those people; but even selfishly: do you really think that this will have no effect on surrounding areas? Is your plan just to build big walls around your suburbs and have lots of cops with bayonets at the ready? What if you want to drive to somewhere else? Will everyone drive in armored personnel carriers? With solid rubber tires and perhaps even tank treads to navigate the potholes that are more prevalent than the asphalt? > > Let’s say your state adopts such an extreme individualistic approach, and the federal government somehow allows it as well. If another state like Minnesota sticks with the more communitarian approach, do you really think businesses will flock to your state just for lower taxes\* and less regulation? I submit that those who will are the ones that may threaten to move to the Third World at any moment anyway and do not provide well-paying jobs. Similar to what we see in the South now. > > - Debatable, since transportation costs and those incurred shielding the more affluent areas from the chaos, violence, fire, and disease of the outlying shantytowns will be significant. (2) > [@](#): > > In any municipal unit there will be usually over half the residents who pay less than their “fair share”. You buy a house in the cheapest subdivision in the nicest school district and send your five kids to the public schools, you could be said to be a freeloader. Where does it end? How atomised do municipalities have to be before the affluent stop resenting people less affluent than they are getting a slice of “their” pie? Will they be satisfied only when all revenue comes from poll taxes? Not a rhetorical question. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/179 "2013-08-08T14:46:12Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Vastly different, unless you consider an “expanded Boston” to be the whole eastern half of the state. Well most of the Eastern half of the state is probably within the [Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greaterboston2.png) > [@](#): > > But that’s the point, the eastern half of MA is a complex arrangement of bedroom communities, small towns, agricultural areas, centuries old towns, small cities, resort towns, and established suburbs. Yes, they all have a relationship with Boston, but they aren’t part of Boston. And the entire western part of the state is very different socially, politically, and economically. I agree with all of this. The point is that if you expanded Boston to include the entire Boston Metropolitan Area, you would probably end up with a government which is not too different from that of Massachusetts as a whole. So one can ask why people would advocate for something which pretty much already exists. And the answer (it seems to me) is that those who want to expand Boston don’t actually want to include the entire metro area. What they want is to expand the borders enough to fatten the tax base and gobble up better schools and city services – but without changing the current government all too much. In short, a power and resource grab. > [@](#): > > I grew up in a suburb outside of Boston that still has a town meeting to handle local government. Why would that town want to join a metropolitan Boston government where their local voice would be completely lost? Probably they wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395/180 "2013-08-08T15:28:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Your post just raises the same questions I keep asking but which your side seems to shy away from addressing directly. In fact, I’m tired of rephrasing them over and over, so I’ll just quote myself and ask again: > > > [@](#): > > > > So the bankrupt city could shutter its police stations and schools, and turn off its water supply, and stop collecting garbage, and just let people live in Haiti-like conditions, and that would be fine with you? I get that you are aggressive about feeling no compassion for those people; but even selfishly: do you really think that this will have no effect on surrounding areas? Is your plan just to build big walls around your suburbs and have lots of cops with bayonets at the ready? What if you want to drive to somewhere else? Will everyone drive in armored personnel carriers? With solid rubber tires and perhaps even tank treads to navigate the potholes that are more prevalent than the asphalt? I don’t know how this got to right vs. left or what Obama wants to do or gerrymandered districts but unless it’s the position of the democratic party platform to eliminate suburbs by having larger cities annex them, all that other stuff is irrelevant. And the reason no one responds to the outlandishly absurd scenario above is because it is just that. Not worth of response because it is so asininely stupid. You may as well suggest that unless cities can annex other cities then aliens will come from space and turn all the crickets into purple flying unicorns. It’s that pathetically stupid of an example. For the vast vast majority of all suburbs, the above has not played out and there is no annexing. This idea is an effort to grow government, and acquire more taxes. Par for the course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cities-w-o-suburbs-every-metro-area-in-america-should-have-consolidated-metro-government/665395.md?page=10)