Reducing the Number of Governments in New York State

by: simonstl

Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:37:14 AM EST

Our soon-to-be Governor Cuomo has made reducing the number of governments in New York State one of his signature issues. I agree that 10,521 governments is probably too many for 19.5 million people - that's a government for about every 1850 of us, actually more like a government for every 1060 of us outside of the already way-consolidated New York City.

Unfortunately, the most visible side of Cuomo's program for resolving this is largely (though not entirely) bogus. "Let's dissolve villages! Sure, there will be a study and a referendum, but these layers of government should vanish." Doubtless there are some spendthrift villages out there, and perhaps there are a few that no longer feel like villages. However...

Most of those 10,521 governments aren't what we think of as "government". They aren't counties (62), towns (932), cities (62), villages (556), or school districts (643 + 37 BOCES). That leaves 8,229 "governments"!

Those "governments" are special districts. For example, Tompkins County has 1 county, 1 city, 9 town, 6 village, and 7 school districts in it. Out of 95 governments, 71 are districts of some kind or another, 66 of which are administered by that core of 17 municipal governments. The Town of Dryden has water, sewer, and lighting districts, and a corner in a separate fire district. Five different school districts serve Dryden residents. (If you want to know how all these pieces work, Wikipedia has a great answer.)

The problem isn't that we have too many villages. The problem is that we have lots of overlapping responsibilities that lack clear direction. While my Town Board has great people on it, none of them actually live in any of the sewer, water, or lighting districts that they oversee. The Dryden school district and the Town of Dryden have substantial overlap, but the Dryden schools area is centered further east than the Town. We do have complications created by Town-Village interactions on infrastructure, but in large part those problems are the result of property owners wanting the infrastructure advantages of a village without actually being in one.

So how do we fix this? How do we bring our number of governments down to something more reasonable, improve oversight, and reduce cost?

My answer is consolidation, but a different kind of consolidation. Instead of just getting rid of governments, focus on creating clear lines of responsibility to voters. Re-establishing those connections will have the nice side effect of consolidating many of these "governments" into something more rational.

Why there will always be an Upstate

by: NYCO

Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 13:48:08 PM EDT

Also today in the NY Times is a series of editorials on "Can New York (State) Be Saved?"  Upstaters' hackles may rise at this particular response, but in truth we've seen this attitude before, and I'd rather spend this diary considering the real "truth about Upstate" as it relates to "The City."

Three dark clouds in today's Times

by: simonstl

Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 12:14:01 PM EDT

The New York Times metro section has three stories that (for once) promise to affect the entire state. They're not upbeat stories, though:

• The level of the Great Lakes is falling. I'd seen earlier reports of problems on Huron and Superior, but less water there means less water here eventually. They focus on the impact on cargo shipping, but those lakes have a dramatic effect on weather conditions and water levels across the state.

• It looks like Albany won't be seeing pleasant surprises in tax revenue, as Wall Street bonuses look like they're going away. That could have a direct effect on New York City, but the financial reverberations would affect the whole state.

• This one's a little older, but I just noticed it on the site: a map of subprime lending in New York (including upstate), New Jersey, and Connecticut. New Yorkers may be facing some problems, concentrated (in the zoomed-in version) in our cities.

These don't sound like pleasant changes to come. Hopefully some of them will just blow by, but we'll probably see some problems along the way.

Will multinational corporations take control of upstate NY's waters?

by: robinia

Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:14:12 AM EDT

In fact, connection through ubiquitous surface water has been a mainstay of NY prosperity ever since the first birch-bark canoes were launched by the Haudenosaunee.  Simon's recent post here-- which is so excellent it surely deserves broad linking, if not its own conference-- rightly ID's water as a key resource for the future, as well as one of the locational advantages that created NYS prosperity in the past.  But, in its weakened economic state, is upstate NY in a position to protect its bountiful natural resource from the vultures gathering to mine it?  While the NYC reservoir watersheds have powerful protectors, is our State government up to the task of protecting our key resource from multinational corporate predation?