9 replies to this topic

[Urbaner]

See today’s Providence Journal article:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/METRO_PUBLIC_SAFETY_10-02-09_83FTLPT_v92.3cf4d7c.html

Could this be the beginning of a new larger city?

[09/21/38]

This will take ten years to iron out all of the issues and chiefs involved.  But if it is agreed to then West Warwick, Coventry, EG and NK should be added to the list.  

Already there is regionalization for water, electricity, cable, mail delivery, trash/recycling, school busing, etc.

[Lone Ranger]

Now take the idea one step further: why do the people of Providence, Pawtucket, Cranston, CF, NP, and EP need to pay the salaries, benefits, and perks of keeping 5 different mayors and 1 city manager?  

If it goes anywhere at all, this idea can only lead one place.  And I like where it goes.

[Urbaner]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 3 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Now take the idea one step further: why do the people of Providence, Pawtucket, Cranston, CF, NP, and EP need to pay the salaries, benefits, and perks of keeping 5 different mayors and 1 city manager?  

If it goes anywhere at all, this idea can only lead one place.  And I like where it goes.

Besides Mayors or city managers, add school department superintendents along with each of their administrative staffs, health department heads and departments, planning and building departments. Why seven for any of these positions or departments, when one might be sufficient. Besides the salary savings, redundancies would be eliminated. The street grids of the seven municipalities are already interlaced, as is economic activity. No one needs a passport to travel between Pawtucket and Cranston or North Providence. The current boundaries reflect an earlier time and do not acknowledge the actual reality and interactive nature of the present “functional city.”

The fear of some might be of domination by Providence. The reality might be more egalitarian. Providence would be less than half of the combined group of seven municipalities that would total around 450,000 people.

[jencoleslaw]

I suspect the fear, aside from hundreds of people losing jobs, would be that the more well-heeled suburbs would actually have a lot more say than Providence, which I am pretty sure has a much higher minority population than the surrounding suburbs.   I will also go out on a limb here and say that those same suburbs will not want Providence kids going to their schools.

Now that I am fully involved in a county system in Virginia (FX County being roughly the size of all of RI but with more people and about a kajillion more tax dollars) I can see pros and cons with both systems. To make things even more complicated, the Virginia DOT is in charge of ALL roads in FX county. All of them. Not just state roads, but even little cul-de-sacs.  

The Parks Authority, and the School Department are kind of separate but equal branches of county government, with their own budgets. Trash and recycling is contracted on a per-household basis, not by the county.   The County, however, manages the trash to energy (!) plant and the landfill. Recycling goes to private recycling facilities around the Northern Virginia Area.

Anyway, it is an interesting idea, but i do not see it happening until more than one RI city is facing bankruptcy and the issue is forced via a referendum by the voters who are sick of paying high taxes for all the services they are barely getting, while another community is duplicating those services (maybe better) just a mile away. I don't see the 15 councilpeople in Providence and the mayor giving up most of their seats to be part of some kind of city/state consortium.

[Urbaner]

jencoleslaw, on Oct 4 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

I suspect the fear, aside from hundreds of people losing jobs, would be that the more well-heeled suburbs would actually have a lot more say than Providence, which I am pretty sure has a much higher minority population than the surrounding suburbs. I will also go out on a limb here and say that those same suburbs will not want Providence kids going to their schools. . . .

. . . Anyway, it is an interesting idea, but i do not see it happening until more than one RI city is facing bankruptcy and the issue is forced via a referendum by the voters who are sick of paying high taxes for all the services they are barely getting, while another community is duplicating those services (maybe better) just a mile away. I don't see the 15 councilpeople in Providence and the mayor giving up most of their seats to be part of some kind of city/state consortium.

It’s absolutely true that there would likely be strong opposition from more suburban areas to combining school systems. About 40 years ago the state proposed creating a metropolitan school district. One of its features was to bus students in both directions between city and suburban schools to offer diversity. The high school auditorium in Lincoln was filled to capacity with standing room only by protesting parents complaining that they didn’t pay taxes in Lincoln to support Providence’s school system. The protest was splashed all over broadcast and print media and the proposal was immediately dropped.

A few years ago Cranston was unable pay for the services it provided, which may have had more to do with a Republican administration that any real crisis. On the other hand within the last year North Providence was on the verge of bankruptcy. It was broke. Other cities and towns were slashing services and raising taxes. The state’s current $63 million deficit would have produced 1,000 lay-offs. If accepted by the unions, the Carcieri compromise would handcuff the state until mid 2011 to lay-off anyone. What will happen as the state’s deficit balloons towards $240 million? If workers can’t be cut and entitlements and federal mandates are untouchable what options are left to the state? Cutting aid to cities and towns, eliminating RIPTA, raising taxes, or adding tolls to all state highways might be the only viable options.

It also may be true that politicians will resist the losing power. However, if service are continually cut and taxes raised they may lose it anyway.  It won’t be hundreds of jobs lost in a few cities, but thousands statewide, if a more pragmatic and unorthodox approach isn’t adopted that would streamline local and state services.

[Lone Ranger]

jencoleslaw, on Oct 4 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

I suspect the fear, aside from hundreds of people losing jobs, would be that the more well-heeled suburbs would actually have a lot more say than Providence, which I am pretty sure has a much higher minority population than the surrounding suburbs.   I will also go out on a limb here and say that those same suburbs will not want Providence kids going to their schools.

The suburbs probably would have more political say.  That would be the sacrifice Providence made into the bargain.  On the other hand, city officials have been griping for years about the current high percentage of untaxable land owned by non-profits in Providence -- I've heard estimates as high as 25%.  A merger or consolidation would solve that problem instantly.

Which is fair.  After all, as you point out, Jen, there needs to be motivation on all sides for anything like this to be considered.  Very strong motivation.  You're probably right, a bankruptcy might be the only impetus strong enough to force communities to act so drastically ...

Hate to say it, because it's not the prettiest side of humanity, but I'm sure you're right about schools being the biggest obstacle to the creation of a single, larger municipality -- and I doubt the deal could ever get done as long as a fully merged school system was an option.  Maybe the solution would be to maintain the separate cities as boroughs and not allow inter-borough school attendance.

[Urbaner]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 6 2009, 07:11 AM, said:

The suburbs probably would have more political say. That would be the sacrifice Providence made into the bargain. On the other hand, city officials have been griping for years about the current high percentage of untaxable land owned by non-profits in Providence -- I've heard estimates as high as 25%. A merger or consolidation would solve that problem instantly.

Which is fair. After all, as you point out, Jen, there needs to be motivation on all sides for anything like this to be considered. Very strong motivation. You're probably right, a bankruptcy might be the only impetus strong enough to force communities to act so drastically ...

Hate to say it, because it's not the prettiest side of humanity, but I'm sure you're right about schools being the biggest obstacle to the creation of a single, larger municipality -- and I doubt the deal could ever get done as long as a fully merged school system was an option. Maybe the solution would be to maintain the separate cities as boroughs and not allow inter-borough school attendance.

The school systems are usually the biggest expense a city or town incurs. Using a borough system with separated school systems would be more palatable for suburban communities to join. There would be less fiscal benefit to a consolidated city without the schools. It’s not so much the teachers and facilities where expenses would be reduced, but in school administration by a merger.

Could there be two sets of tax rates; a base rate and a secondary rate, if a “borough” chose the pay more to provide additional services, such as schools? Of the 7 communities that are considering some service mergers, other than Central Falls and Providence, which tax rates are at either end of the extreme, the others are only within a few dollars of each other. A reasonable average rate could be established.

A borough system would have to be carefully crafted. New York’s borough system was shot down by the Supreme Court in 1989. The decision was based on equal representation rights due to the varying populations of boroughs. Now the boroughs and Borough Presidents no longer have legislative authority though judicial and administrative responsibilities remain.

[frymasterspeck]

I'm not sure that these suburbs get to play the we're-to-good-for-you card. Johnston? NP? EP?

Western Cranston, maybe, but bollox Cranston West. There are people of color in the mix. Deal with it.

Also, Warwick, EG, Barry, Lincoln, Smithfield, are _not_ invited. (Warren. Give us a call.)

[Cotuit]

frymasterspeck, on Oct 6 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

I'm not sure that these suburbs get to play the we're-to-good-for-you card. Johnston? NP? EP?

My thought exactly, with the state zero funding us all every year, it is only a matter of time before all schools are in the crapper.

Really, we have to get out of the business of the cities/towns funding the schools, they need to be funded at the state level. Make the state take over the schools, then a big hurdle towards regionalism goes away (of course there is the hurdle of the towns giving control to the state and the hurdle of the state having no money).

Urbaner, on Oct 6 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

A borough system would have to be carefully crafted. New York’s borough system was shot down by the Supreme Court in 1989. The decision was based on equal representation rights due to the varying populations of boroughs. Now the boroughs and Borough Presidents no longer have legislative authority though judicial and administrative responsibilities remain.

If the Supremes don't like a borough set up and the inequities it brings, than how can what we (and the rest of New England) does at the state level be fair and equitable? Has anyone tried a run at the Supreme Court on our system?

Personally, I favor regionalization over outright consolidation. I cringe at the thought of Cranstonites and NPers coming to 'our' council meetings and whining that buildings are too tall and they can't park Downcity, we have enough of those people in the 19 square miles as it is. Certainly there are savings to be had by dismantling each city's government, but I wouldn't want to devolve all the way down to one consolidated government. There must be some sort of model whereby local control is maintained within the regional authority (I guess that would be a county, but that concept is so foreign to me even though I'm from the Cape where we actually have rather strong county agencies... by New England standards).

frymasterspeck, on Oct 6 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

Also, Warwick, EG, Barry, Lincoln, Smithfield, are _not_ invited. (Warren. Give us a call.)

Yes, someone reach out to Warren. I say if this can work in "Greater Providence" then next steps should be "Greater Warwick" and "Aquidneck Metro."