Archive: Opinions

From time to time the topic of consolidating governments comes up.  A Lansing Councilman has said he favors a county-wide government, and the idea of merging school districts was a favorite of a former Lansing School Superintendent.  Economy of scale is the argument that most people like when advocating a multi-municipality or school district -- wide government.

I am all for economy, and economy of scale -- the idea that a larger entity can command lower prices on supplies and services -- isn't a bad idea.  We already have that in most cases with towns and school buying equipment on 'state contract' that pretty much allows the state to buy things and sell them at its lower cost to the individual municipalities. 

Avoiding duplication of government personnel and resources is the other argument.  That's the one I take issue with.  Because I think most of the smaller, local governments do a much better job than the larger governments.  The Lansing Town and Village governments, by and large, do a more fiscally responsible job than the County, which does a better job than the State, which... well it's a crap shoot whether the state or federal government does a better job.

The reason local government works is that it sees to local needs.  Take the current discussion about shared municipal health insurance.  The Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG) wants to implement it because it claims there will be an economy of scale.  And while the Lansing agree that it might be a little cheaper, the savings isn't enough to make them want to go through the hoops to get it, or lose their own control of insurance that is just as good or almost as good as what they have.  And while such plans tend to offer tangible benefits to the larger municipal entities, the it's typically a wash or just a little better for smaller ones.

Take the idea that's been floated to merge the City of Ithaca with the Town of Ithaca and Cayuga Heights.  It would be great for city people, but Town and Village taxpayers would actually find themselves with a larger burden and services spread out over a larger area.  Their deal would be to get less while paying more.  I'll be surprised if the idea flies.

Here's another example:  Look at Lansing roads.  Now look at county roads.  Now look at state roads.  Lansing roads look terrific.  County roads are somewhat less terrific.  State roads are not terrific.

There are just some things that people are better at doing for themselves.  While the duplication of governments certainly uses more resources.  But you get what you pay for.  Ultimately it may be cheaper, relative to what small communities get for the money, to pay for local governments.

----
v5i22