Printable View
The city of Warren and the City of Sterling Heights agree to share services. I am noticing this is occurring more and more and wondered if this isn't a back door way to begin to regionilize our metro area. I am sure this is not the only instance of cities sharing services. What do you think?
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2011109250551
It depends on how you look at it. More cities are taking a regional approach to solve issues when it comes to providing services when there are financial benefits to it. Lots of communities have done similar things and there is indeed a growing trend to this.
If you are looking at this as a merger between Sterling Heights and Warren you are way off of base. The political structures that were created are too hard to tear down.
Exactly. Gov Snyder has said repeatedly that he's going to tie revenue sharing to cities doing this.
And you can bet Warren iniated this. They don't want to get stuck having to create partnerships with their other neighboring city.
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/...nated-building
I wonder how often a city like Warren uses their special response team? It sounds like they spend a lot of time training, but do they ever really but this training to use? Maybe I'm wrong but I would think a county could provide these special teams for their area. The people in the video above look like they're training to go to Afghanistan.
hazel park? eastpointe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevgoblue
[[Forced) shared [[select) services between sprawling suburbs, regionalism does not make.
Warren has worked for years trying to do these things. It does not make sense for either Warren or Centerline not to do this, but Centerline is a hold-out.
True, but it's progress. People seem to see all the costs of regionalism but none of the benefits. This may be a good way for the people to witness the benefits that come along with it, and this will smooth the way for regionalism down the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
Look at Pontiac police. For years it was "Hell, no. You're on MY side of the line. We'll NEVER give up control." Now, it's more like, "Jesus. WTF took us so long."
Let people get a taste of the candy...then it will sell itself.
I would have considered it more significant if it was Madison Heights or Hazel Park or something. Sterling Heights isn't that dramatically different from Warren and they both already share a lot of similarities. The only difference is one buffers Detroit and the other buffers exurbs. I don't see much changing here.
I can see this as a step toward regionalization... but it's still a long road ahead. If anything, this is a step towards regionalization among Macomb County communities. The same thing may be happening in Oakland County. But it will be a looooong time before any cross 8 Mile cooperation takes hold, except perhaps in a Homeland Security type scenario.
Wake me when two communities that aren't mostly the same income level start sharing services. Until then, we're just sharing services so we can afford to remain separate...
DN, in the history of our Republic... has any unit of government ever dissolve itself voluntarily? Not that I can ever remember... everyone is looking out for #1... not what's best for the cities or region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Yes. For one, in 1898, the various counties that now make up New York City voted unanimously to become boroughs of Greater New York City.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Not sure if this really counts as dissolving, but in 1969 [[or so), Indianapolis and Marion County, IN, became more or less a single governed entity. But this was done as a purely legislative action because one party was in power at the city, county and state levels and essentially made this happen as a way to both increase governmental efficiency and consolidate political power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I think the same mechanics were at work when tiny Anchorage swallowed the huge county it's in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthophonic
I suppose if you bring up any instance of people giving up political power for the greater good, you're going to get an apples-oranges response from many. But it does happen. Perhaps, given our long enslavement to "home rule" and anti-annexation policies, we prefer to think it can't happen here. But, with a few tweaks to the state constitution, an effort to educate people on the benefits, demographic shifts that even out the metro field and, dare I say it, a certain dying off of the older guard who hate the idea of regional unification, and it could happen 20 or 30 years down the road. Which is a shame because we could do so much to improve the city's core and its neighborhoods, smarten up some of the suburban environments by introducing transit and zoning modifications, and start turning some of the more overzealous exurban developments back into beet fields and recreational land. I guess we'll see.
Recommended reading on this topic would be David Rusk's "Cities without Suburbs".
Any willingness to re-examine traditional ways of operating local government is a positive sign.
Of course, it's not necessarily an either-or choice between separate local govts and one big metro govt. Local governments do not need to "dissolve" or disappear in order for us to have regional governance. At a panel discussion the other day the moderator suggested we merge governments into counties, like they do in Maryland. That's totally not necessary and it gives people the wrong idea about regionalism.
Far more likely, and more palatable for most, are stronger regional entities that would take responsibility for some regional issues, preferably services that are cheaper to provide at the regional level and stuff that doesn't even make sense at the local level, e.g., regional transit. While "home rule" in MI is kind of extreme, it's true there are some things best kept local. You can make a good case for keeping schools or parks under local control, for example.
Transportation, on the other hand, would be a good candidate for real regional governance in the short term. Local governments currently don't do much on this, at least not with transit, so it wouldn't be taking away power from communities. And clearly there's a great need for it.
I agree with Detroitnerd that regionally coordinated zoning is also greatly needed. But I think that's a few decades away.