Snyder pushes leaders for more regional cooperation

By: Carol Cain

Gov. Rick Snyder may have to dig a little deeper in his bag of CEO leadership tools to convince regional leaders to work closer together.

Amid the gnashing of teeth over reductions of movie incentives, funding of education and other things, there are rumblings, too, from some leaders in southeast Michigan about suggestions of doing more together.

"I'm not sure it would be a realistic proposition for those of us running larger counties to suddenly merge more operations," said Mark Hackel, new Macomb County executive who is putting together his outline of how the suburban Detroit county will be set up.
He's working under a 180-day deadline mandated by voters.
"Local control is always a key impediment" to getting more things done, Hackel said. "These decisions also should not be driven by simply saving money. They should be done because they make sense."

Included in Hackel's plans will be more about his "blue economy" of creating opportunities around Lake St. Clair with a pier, giant freshwater aquarium, campsites and maybe even a casino.

To the west, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson wasn't feeling all warm and fuzzy about embracing all nearby counties.

"I would look at doing more. But I would pick my merger partners," said Patterson.
He's already pursuing joint economic development efforts with Genesee, Livingston and other northern counties.

Patterson said he would not be as favorable to being lumped in with Wayne County as "they have huge debts I would not want to be saddled with."


Continued at: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2011104100449

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by begingri

By: Carol Cain
..."Local control is always a key impediment" to getting more things done, Hackel said. "These decisions also should not be driven by simply saving money. They should be done because they make sense."

---

If your citizens done mind a local tax that actually pays the bills, and doesn't rely on Washington/Lansing to subsidize your expensive decisions, spend away!

Quote:

---

...To the west, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson wasn't feeling all warm and fuzzy about embracing all nearby counties.

"I would look at doing more. But I would pick my merger partners," said Patterson.
He's already pursuing joint economic development efforts with Genesee, Livingston and other northern counties.

Patterson said he would not be as favorable to being lumped in with Wayne County as "they have huge debts I would not want to be saddled with."

---

First sensible thing I've heard from Patterson in a while. He makes sense!

[[And the reporter has it wrong, he is in favor. Just not with loser partners.)

But of course as quoted this doesn't make much sense. What difference would Wayne County's debts make in pursuing "joint economic development efforts"? It is a sensible concern if you are talking about an actual merger of counties, but it doesn't really make sense from the standpoint of shared services or new joint ventures.

In any case, any counties "embracing" each other would be new, and as far as I am concerned they don't all have to embrace each other at once. If nothing else it would be a bit unseemly.

Agreed, mwilbert. But a weak partner is a dependent partner. Better to join up with partners who aren't addicted, hangs out with with company, and can't control their spending.

LBP wants mergers with Genesee, Livingston, and other northern counties because he truly believes that urban sprawl is the future and that those counties will see continued economic development. I, however, in my infinite wisdom, think this is a gross miscalculation.

Actually, LBP has probably reached the point where he believes the growth of Oakland County is limited or potentially over. The point is, if he merges with those rural counties, he is banking on them being the boom towns that will carry Oakland County in the years to come.

LBP doesn't want to merge with any counties. Not sure where you got that implication. It sounds like he barely wants consolidation of services, let alone mergers.

BTW, it'd be funny if it weren't so sad, but it appears that Patterson's dislike of Wayne is so strong, that he'll hook-up with another declining, deficit-ridden county [[Genesee) out of spite. He can sprawl all the way up and partner with Saginaw County if he wants. His legacy has been shot for years, now.

What a joke. LBP should be begging to merge with Wayne County. After all, most of the regions critical infrastructure is located within Wayne County/Detroit. The Ambassador Bridge, the car tunnel, the rail tunnel and major railroad junctions, Detroit Metro Airport, Willow Run Airport, major shipping facilities and trucking depots, major manufacturing facilities, and educational infrastructure such as Wayne State University, University of Michigan Dearborn and University of Detroit-Mercy. And Wayne County flanks Washtenaw county which is home to Eastern Michigan University [[Ypsilanti) and University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

What does Oakland have? The suburban campus of Oakland University and a bunch of outdated suburban office parks and a couple factories? Some tiny "downtowns" surrounded by a sea of sprawl. A little corporate airport? Great. The real growth in the 21st century will be based around solid infrastructure -- transportation [[rail, sea, air and ground), education [[universities), manufacturing [[factories and warehouses in close proximity to transportation), and quality urban neighborhoods within close proximity to these amenities [[yeah, Detroit/Wayne is lacking, but there is way more potential than Oakland)

Oakland County of the early 21st century is Detroit of the late 20th century -- outdated and in decline. LBP thinks the 21st century growth area is north of the Oakland but it is really south, as Detroit will reinvent itself. The strategic thing would be to promote Detroit and benefit from its growth, which would surely spill over into Oakland.

If "greater regional cooperation" means shared responsibility for regional assets, then I'm all for it. I'm also for long-term planning on a regional scale.

But if it means taxing Michigan's economic engine [[Oakland) to pay for the liabilities of Michigan's economic laggards, then no thanks. That's what revenue sharing is already for.