Glad to see I’m not the only North Texan on the SDMB. Just remember guys, the secret is JWP and the South Dallas Eternally Anointed.
If we eliminate States and municipalities in favor of my Federal Administration Districts, you don’t have the problem of gerrymandering and “unfair” representation in Washington where the old, tired, worn-out concept of a Constitutional Republic gets in the way of 100% pure direct Democracy. Heck, we can even skip the Democracy part and just let out betters administrate us as they see fit, because clearly they know best how we should live. We won’t even have to worry about stuff like voter fraud then, and everyone can share equally in the munificent bounty of our great land, thanks to our newly founded Meritocracy.
Yes, we will, we’ll just shift it to a higher level. If you want to eliminate gerrymandering, go for proportional representation. I trust you have no objections ironical or otherwise to that.
LOL. Poll taxes are illegal and unconstitutional. You’ll need to change the U.S. Constitution and you don’t have the votes for that.
I think it would be easier if Big City learned to control their spending and learned to live within their means. It makes no sense to pour more tax dollars into a big city government that simply has no financial common sense. You’re not convincing anyone that your form of socialism is worth the paper it isn’t written on.
Why don’t you start a business in Big City and hire Big City residents. You and your employees would then be supplying Big City with the tax dollars they need to continue to reward their friends and family.
LOL. Big City overspent but that was not due to middle-class residents moving out. It was the fault of decades of arrogant and incompetent city managers who were more interested in lining their own pockets and increasing their clout with their crooked political associates. Big City’s motto was “What’s In It For Me”.
Big City should have made itself MORE attractive to employers and employees. They still can. Big City should have provided the services and government that their ex-residents wanted. Big City had decades to address the problems that caused it’s tax base to leave. It’s STILL the responsibility of Big City government to get it’s own act together.
Forcing others to pay for Big Cities past and current mistakes isn’t going to happen if it’s put to a popular vote.
Maybe bankruptcy will give Big City a chance to get out from under it’s debt and get a fresh start with city managers who actually know how to run a government efficiently.
If that’s the reason, then why not have a state takeover of the Big City? Instead of the residents of the Big City electing a mayor and city council to run the Big City, just have the governor appoint someone to run the city and use state tax revenues to supplement city revenue.
This should be a pretty good solution for people who truly favor consolidated metro government. But most of those people would not favor such a solution because it’s not what they really want. Like spoiled teenagers, they want the extra money without any adult supervision.
And again the question – fundamentally, is this so different from state control?
That was partially a factor too, but that was caused by the lack of middle-class voters who had a sense of civic duty and interest in the community.
Certainly there have been such attempts made-some of which have been reasonably successful (such as New York and Chicago). However the initial stages of migration out of the cities was caused by unwise policies in the postwar era.
True but that isn’t the sole purpose of a consolidated metropolitan government.
Because that isn’t a permanent solution unless you wish to have the state government propping up the city indefinitely or bailing them out again and again.
You do realize a consolidated metropolitan government would be accountable to citizens.
The borders would be more logical than state borders. Ie you wouldn’t have upstate residents with no connection to the city having any say but you would bring in the voices of people who live in suburbs right across the state line.
This is only true if by “local rule” you mean having less of a voice over a larger region. I hate to break the news to you, but that’s the opposite of local rule.
The point is that the people in question have already voted with their feet and their wallets against what you propose. I suspect they won’t vote for your scheme after persuasion and manipulation. Now what?
Taxes and schools, that’s why they moved. Who’s in the mayor’s office is only a tool to those ends.
How is that any different from propping up the city indefinitely by fattening up its budget with the tax rolls of surrounding suburbs? From an economic perspective, there is very little difference.
But there is a big difference in terms of who holds the reins of power and which constituencies will be favored or disfavored.
No I don’t realize that since I don’t know what you mean by “accountable to citizens.” Can you explain what you mean by that phrase?
I agree to an extent but I am skeptical that this is the true motivation. For one thing, one man’s “logical border” is another man’s gerrymander.
Let me ask you this: If there is an area in a particular city, state, or nation, and the people in that area (generally speaking) have little connection with the rest of the city, state, or nation and want to secede, do you agree that it by your standard it’s “logical” for them to secede? And if so, would you support such secession?
Sure, but all cities do as well. By way of comparison, my city council district in Dallas (District 10) is roughly 80,000 people out of some 1.2 million people.
If I moved to Allen, which is kind of the hot northern suburb at the moment, the entire freaking city is 87,000 people.
So yeah, my voice could be a lot louder in Allen than in Dallas. Plus all the stuff about common values and goals, etc… that I said earlier.
I realize that big cities have a hard balancing act, but I don’t think the answer is to compel the not-poor to subsidize the poor by force, which is exactly what people are advocating here.
Are cities in the United States currently having a really hard time with their budgets? There’s Detroit, obviously, but since we’ve been talking about Dallas a lot how is it doing? How about San Francisco, New York City, Sacramento, Denver, Colorado Springs and other cities?
Like with all governments, people always demand more services from cities than they are prepared to pay for. It doesn’t help that unlike states and the feds, cities can only collect cash in very limited ways.
Why would I want to do that? Poll (meaning capitation) taxes are the opposite of progressive, and I am a progressive. I’m only pointing out that this would be the logical goal for an individualist, libertarian type, and one of the only ways to avoid having so-called “takers” within any sovereignty. Absent that, 99 percent of the population is either going to be moochers or be mooched off of.
Did you read the OP? The Met Council’s 17 members are appointed by the governor. Of the whole state.
[shrug] That’s how it traditionally works in France, departmental prefects being not local elected officials but career civil servants sent out from Paris, and a case can be made for it. That goes back to the royally-appointed pre-Revolutionary intendants who oversaw the provinces, the pays d’etat. (France lately is less centralized than it used to be, BTW.)
But, for better or for worse, American political traditions value local political autonomy, going back to colonial times when government above the town level was barely existent. Metropolitan government is a possible sell just because some jurisdictions already have done it, or constantly are doing it quietly by increments, annexing built-up areas on the city’s borders in those states where state law gives them that power; but state-run local governments – full-function consolidated governments, beyond the limited powers and visibility of the Twin Cities Met Council – would be much harder to sell.
Every year, all cities have a hard time balancing their budgets. City managers want to spend more than they take in. Roads, police, fire, hospitals, green areas, holiday displays, salaries, pensions, advertizing, homeless programs, elder care, water, sewer, schools, school supplies, etc, all requre more tax money than they did last year. Is that tax money available or do taxes have to be increased and new taxes created?
The recent sub-prime housing bubble burst indirectly reduced the tax money coming in. Employers and employees suffered financial setbacks and bankruptcy which reduced tax revenue. The smart cities have been able to balance their current needs with their current income. Other cities have continued to spend like drunken sailors (my apologies to drunken sailors). If those cities don’t get their head out of their butt, they are going to go bankrupt and they’ll blame everyone but themselves for the debacle.
My mistake. When you said poll tax, I thought you meant poll tax when you actually meant poll tax. Thanks for the clarification. Seriously.
You don’t like the current government bureaucracy which is run by political appointees and hacks and want to fundimentally change government by creating a different government bureaucracy which will be run by political appointees and hacks. And you will call that “progressive”.
The problems of the olde (current) systems was caused by the people who ran the systems. People used their freewill, voted with their feet, and left Big City.
Big City could have made the effort to entice more employers to Big City to replace those that left. The new employers would have hired more Big City residents and Big City would have recieved increased revenue without raising tax rates.
Will your new, fundamentally changed system ban current and former city managers from participating in the new city/area management? How will you keep the new system from succumbing to the same temptations and corruption that haunts the olde system?
:rolleyes: