|
Facts, Fantasies, and Regionalization February 26, 2009 Connecticut’s regional-government boosters are thrilled that Governor M. Jodi Rell’s proposed budget creates new grant programs for municipal cooperation. Regionalization advocates believe -- despite abundant evidence to the contrary -- that local government in Connecticut would be affordable, if only it weren’t comprised of what they believe are 169 very shortsighted domains. So they’re praising the tens of millions of dollars Rell wants to spend to “incentivize” cities and towns to work together. People come to the regionalization religion for a variety of reasons. “Government should be run like a business” technocrats (many were fans of Ross Perot, no doubt) think private-sector principles can be injected into public bureaucracies. (“Why have so many firehouses, dial-a-ride services, and athletic fields in such a small state? It doesn’t make sense!”) These folks aren’t bothered by the fact that economies of scale aren’t always achievable in business, much less government. Recent economic history is replete with examples of corporate mergers that seemed sensible -- costs would be cut, “synergies” would be attained -- but failed nonetheless. Defense contractors, which exist in a nebulous place between the private and public sectors, provide another example. The military-industrial complex has seen massive consolidation in the last few decades, yet Pentagon procurement remains rife with burst budgets and missed deadlines. Other regional-government fans are shills for Connecticut’s suicidal cities. Their lobbying derives from the unpleasant truth that places like Hartford and Bridgeport are nightmarish concentrations of crime, substance abuse, and poverty. With access to resources and revenue from affluent and middle-class suburbs, these dreamers aver, cites can be saved. Connecticut urbanites’ targeting of their neighbors goes back to November 1964. That’s when Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce President Arthur J. Lumsden, dismayed over his city’s drooping population, organized the “Town Meeting for Tomorrow.” Five hundred attendees listened to a regionalization pitch by Lumsden-paid researchers from MIT and Harvard. Despite the razzle-dazzle -- one delegate was convinced that “within 25 years, a comprehensive regional government will have to be developed” -- Hartford-area residents wisely ignored the conference’s hectoring. Lumsdenism lives on to this day, though. Last year, a Manchester resident running for the legislature claimed the “success of Hartford is critical to the success of the region.” Whatever their motivations, Connecticut regionalists share one thing in common: They’re not very interested in how regional government actually performs in Connecticut. If they were, perhaps their enthusiasm for consolidation would wane. Last, year, disgust over high cost and poor performance prompted two member towns of the troubled Regional School District 11 to launch a study of how to dissolve the district. A proposed consolidated elementary school in Region 12 has led to a feud between the district and Bridgewater. (Last month the town voted to appropriate an additional $37,360 to keep fighting the lawsuit it filed in 2006.) In nearby Region 14, the district’s reconfiguration plan, implemented in 2007, has many parents fuming, with some choosing to withdraw their children. Water, sewage, and garbage services seem particularly ripe for regionalization. But the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), which “serves” municipalities in the Hartford region, doesn’t offer much encouragement. Corruption, waste, environmental fines, and lawsuits have been rampant at the MDC, and the agency’s longstanding mismanagement has necessitated a $1.6 billion project to finally upgrade its infrastructure. (It won’t be long before the first cost overrun is announced.) So is municipal cooperation always inefficient? Hardly. Countless voluntary regional arrangements exist in Connecticut -- and state encouragement had very little to do with their establishment. Here’s just a few: Westport and Weston share a health district. The Capital Region Emergency Service Team provides SWAT response to 11 towns. Wolcott, Naugatuck, Watertown and Middlebury have a cooperative unit to reconstruct and determine the cause of auto accidents. Bethany, Orange, Prospect, and Woodbridge share an animal-control district. Presently, Connecticut’s local governments have the best of both worlds. They’re free to participate in cooperative efforts when it makes sense, and decline partnerships when the risk doesn’t justify the potential payoff. Connecticut’s municipal pols don’t need subsidies to look for ways to cut costs through cooperation. Their obligation to maximize return-on-taxation should be enough. And if it isn’t, multiple “no” votes during spring budget battles can do the job. Local government in Connecticut is indeed unnecessarily costly. But “incentivized” regionalization isn’t the solution. Savings need to be achieved through the elimination of activities municipalities shouldn’t undertake, and a return to realistic compensation for city and town employees. Where do regionalists stand on those two important reforms? D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and lecturer. His website is www.dowdmuska.com. # # # # #
|
