One reason I would consolidate the counties is to make large enough to take on larger roles. Perhaps the largest is to support this next facet of my Reform 2.0 admittedly blue sky analysis.
About 500 of the 850 cities in Minnesota have fewer than 1,000 residents. Over half of those have fewer than 300. Almost all of them are dying, many are dead already, and none of them is really necessary anymore. That's not to downplay or ignore their historical contributions and heritage. But almost all of these cities were born in a high labor agricultural economy decades ago when perhaps 3 in 10 lived or worked on a farm. Now it's more like 3 in 100.
The time has come to unincorporate them, turning whatever remaining duties to my new consolidated counties. The county sheriff would handle policing, already a common practice. The county could continue to oversee a volunteer fire department if present. The county can run their water and sewer systems, though the existing users should pay for them as today. And past some threshold, the city can be figuratively or even literally plowed under.
As with the counties, we don't have to do this all in one year, but not more than 20 years I would say. That's about 25 a year, about 1 per my new larger county per year.
I realize this sounds pat, certainly too easy for us in the Twin Cities to flippantly impose on our greater Minnesota neighbors. But our turn is coming in this seriess. The overall goal remains the same, to limit the number of government units to what's truly necessary. What we have was designed decades ago. We need to realign once again.
Again, I think you are looking for some elusive "efficiency" in government which cannot exist in a practical world. Sure, getting rid of redundant town police and fire departments and turning administration (about all you can do) over to the county makes sense, and small towns and cities are already doing it, considering it, or could be incentivized to do so with a little state cash. But we don't need bigger county governments to do it or we're right back where we started.
My immediate and admittedly emotional reaction is that you're killing people. They get too old to farm, move to "town" and so strongly identify with it that they never leave. Unincorporate the town-- "kill" it-- and you take away some or all of the "pride of place" that sustains these people and gives them "community." Sure, some of these towns will die anyway, but do you really want to be in the business of euthanizing them?
Posted by: J. Ewing | Saturday, August 27, 2011 at 12:23 PM
The gods have no sexual organs. The reproduce via cloning. They don't respect sex. You can understand this clue with how the most disfavored around us behave sexually.
The gods take children because of their innocence and purity. Early sexualization was a clue I was excluded early, despite how they sold it in the context of their positioning.
When a child ascends into heaven AI relieves them of this temptation that is our sexual organs.
The gods sent a powerful clue corraberating what I have said about Civil Rights in years past when Irene cancelled the MLK Jr. Memorial dedication.
Posted by: Falling for temptation will hurt you with the gods | Saturday, August 27, 2011 at 01:11 PM
Not sure what the last comment has to do with anything, but a question. Why can't I post anything to Minngage? Also, where does one actually comment on Reform 2.0, other than here?
Posted by: J. Ewing | Saturday, September 03, 2011 at 08:56 AM