County Re-alignment

[George_Apley]

I don't know, man. I'm not saying we're headed back to a pre-WWII world, but there's a decided shift in housing patterns that could have a major impact on tax base, and therefor a major impact on school funding. Add that to cheap housing and cheap gas more or less drying up. But yeah, getting the Newton's and Brookline's as they currently are to join Boston as it currently is? Not happening.

There's a general shift from exurban to urban. Metro suburbs aren't flailing as far as I know. I'm not sure what official stats show. The inside 128 suburbs don't seem to be hurting for property values at all though. Milton, Newton, Waltham, Lexington, Burlington, Winchester, Woburn, Stoneham, Melrose... these towns are all doing quite well. The route 2 "colonial" towns are doing very well also (your Sudburys, Lincolns, Concords, Actons and Littletons). I know general trends around the country point to the gradual downfall of the suburbs, but I don't see that here in Metro-Boston.

Feel free to fight me on it, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

 

[George_Apley]

Newton and Brookline wouldn't have to. They are very old, heavily urbanized suburbs. You could copy/paste Brookline into the middle of nowhere and it would be its own functioning city no problem.

Its more the post WWII sprawl towns that are going to have major issues if the demographic shift continues at its current pace. The older ones with transportation links and a dense village center (or multiple centers) will be just fine.

Which are most of the Metro-Boston towns. Your 495-belt towns that boomed in the strip-mall era might suffer, but the 128-belt towns will be alright.

 

[underground]

Feel free to fight me on it, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Oh, I'm not trying to fight you on it. I'm just saying, if it does happen, and it might not, it'll probably happen because of changes to housing patterns, and there are actual statistics you could use to make the argument. But, you know, tastes change, technology advances, and the future is hard to predict.

 

[bobthebuilder]

I don't know if the suburbs will fail, per say, but there is a definite shift back towards the urban cores, particularly among young professionals and empty nesters. Both of these demographics value the convenience of being able to easily walk to transit, shops, dining & nightlife. I think when the young professionals start producing spawn, they don't need the bustle of the city and they place more value in having a secure environment, a yard, and school system, and neighborhood environment that you get in the suburbs.

 

[George_Apley]

Oh, I'm not trying to fight you on it. I'm just saying, if it does happen, and it might not, it'll probably happen because of changes to housing patterns, and there are actual statistics you could use to make the argument. But, you know, tastes change, technology advances, and the future is hard to predict.

You're right of course. And yeah, I know I could find some stats, just hard to do that at work hah.

I'm inclined to see Bobthebuilder's point. The Boston metro stands to have a pretty healthy cycle of movement from the 'burbs to the city and back again. Could all that change? Of course. But as it is right now, these are healthy communities, not communities in decline.

 

[davem]

I think when the young professionals start producing spawn, they don't need the bustle of the city and they place more value in having a secure environment, a yard, and school system, and neighborhood environment that you get in the suburbs.

This I have to take issue with. Suburbs =/= safety, in fact if anything they are less safe due to lack of eyes on the street. I would venture to blame a lot of the social issues today directly on the insular nature of the burbs compared to the city.

Yard =/= kids playing. Every house on my block has a yard, and the majority have kids. Every day after school, they play in the (quiet) street in front of my house or go to the park down the street that I pass on my way home from work. The yard is used by the parents bbqing and that's about it. Note that the majority are not caucasian kids, so perhaps dainty white flowers need a fenced in yard, trampoline, and rubberized swingset to have fun.

As for the schools, they are always going to be only as good as the kids and parents that attend. Thinking a single family house on a quarter acre lot magically makes good schools is ludicrous. Having a critical mass of parents that are involved with their kids lives and making sure school work gets done and enforcing good grades is what does. Good teachers, programs, and funding follows. A return to neighborhood schools is also really important, but that is not this topic.

 

[omaja]

^ He is talking about returning to a county government structure. The problem with that, or with Boston annexation is always going to be: how do you sell the cities and towns on that? What possible carrots are you waving at them to start a process that will ultimately remove power from the sacrosanct town-meeting? The county level scheme might be more feasibly done in phases, with powers from the state devolving first. Of course, getting the Commonwealth to pass this plan in the first place is almost laughable on its face.

As for annexation/some sort of arrondissement setup, the question is again, why the hell would cities and towns in the metro-area willingly give the Mayor of Boston budgetary power over their local affairs?

It would have to be sold on a platform of regional growth and efficiencies. In a phrase: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The region can't be at its best when every town is spending a whole lot of time, energy and money by duplicating the exact same efforts as every other small town around it.

At any rate, a straight up annexation would never fly. It would have to be a regional consolidation where a higher "metropolitan" council would include representation from all of the former municipalities. This council would take over responsibilities for regional planning/control and oversee the former municipal-level councils who retain some sort of control over local issues.

 

[George_Apley]

^ That autonomy and redundancy is source of local pride. It's been that way for centuries. It would have to be a major, culturally altering sales pitch.

 

[davem]

What are the goals here? Fancy lines on a map, or fixing the taxis and other regional planning issues?

There is no reason that something that fixes the cabs and other such issues has to effect the provincial powers of the individual municipalities. It should be voluntary to join, and what powers are given over to it should be selective.

In the beginning I think just trying to fix the cabs would be a start. If after streamlining that the municipalities decide it might make sense to start cooperating on trash collection, snow removal, or whatever, then so be it. Really what we need more than anything is a forum in which the cities and towns that are all codependent can get together and talk about issues that effect the region as a whole.

A county is not the way to go about it, too much government, too much red tape, too much striping away of individual municipal self government. It would never fly in Massachusetts, or really most of New England. A "regional cooperative pact" could.

 

[DominusNovus]

I have to agree that I'm not sure what exact powers these counties should have, but I do think that it would be much easier to figure that out if their borders made sense.

 

[omaja]

Really what we need more than anything is a forum in which the cities and towns that are all codependent can get together and talk about issues that effect the region as a whole.

Exactly. Think about it this way: the area inside/around Route 128 is roughly 275 square miles and includes a population of at least two million. There are no less than thirty distinct municipalities in that area. Just think of the amount of duplicated efforts multiplied across all of those governments. Joining efforts on major efforts like transportation and consolidating major contracts/procurements for common services would be an incredible step.

In this scenario the municipal-level governments would be able to spend more time focusing on the things that matter most to the local communities instead of doing the same job as all of the 'competing' surrounding towns which can easily and more efficiently be handled by one centralized office.

You'd have to start with getting buy-in from some combination of Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, Lynn, Newton, Somerville, Waltham, Brookline, Medford and Revere since they are the ten largest municipalities in the area.

 

[Matthew]

Toronto was forcibly merged with its suburbs.

The result was Rob Ford.

 

[George_Apley]

What are the goals here? Fancy lines on a map, or fixing the taxis and other regional planning issues?

There is no reason that something that fixes the cabs and other such issues has to effect the provincial powers of the individual municipalities. It should be voluntary to join, and what powers are given over to it should be selective.

In the beginning I think just trying to fix the cabs would be a start. If after streamlining that the municipalities decide it might make sense to start cooperating on trash collection, snow removal, or whatever, then so be it. Really what we need more than anything is a forum in which the cities and towns that are all codependent can get together and talk about issues that effect the region as a whole.

A county is not the way to go about it, too much government, too much red tape, too much striping away of individual municipal self government. It would never fly in Massachusetts, or really most of New England. A "regional cooperative pact" could.

This. Regional cooperation is what is needed. It needn't be accomplished through an official restructuring.

 

[omaja]

Toronto was forcibly merged with its suburbs.

The result was Rob Ford.

It's certainly some compelling foreshadowing. I'm sure we'd see the crack smoking crew come out in full force to support such a candidate in an amalgamated Boston.

 

[Ron Newman]

We already have the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Perhaps it should be given more responsibilities than it currently has?

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

^ In the current system, it would either have to be a state agency like the MBTA with member municipalities, or run through some sort of partnership between the munis involved.

Or perhaps like the Regional Transit Authorities or the Cambridge Health Alliance? -- http://www.challiance.org/AboutCHA/AboutCHAhome.aspx‎

CHA formed in 1996 when two Massachusetts hospitals - Cambridge Hospital and Somerville Hospital - joined together as an integrated system. This combined entity was better able to meet the needs of its patients and fulfill a shared community health mission. In 2001, the system acquired Whidden Hospital in Everett, MA and associated healthcare services in Malden and Revere. This expanded the system’s geographic range and allowed it to continue helping individuals and families in need.

Roadworks could be transferred to the county level if not the school bodies. Or perhaps utility licensing/oversight at the municipal level. I.e. the bodies which allow Comcast, Cox, Charter, Verizon Fios etc. to license/sell their services in each district.

Many municipalities are also outsourcing their tax collection operations to private companies. Places like mcc.net perhaps that could be streamlined also.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

What are the goals here? Fancy lines on a map, or fixing the taxis and other regional planning issues?

There is no reason that something that fixes the cabs and other such issues has to effect the provincial powers of the individual municipalities. It should be voluntary to join, and what powers are given over to it should be selective.

In the beginning I think just trying to fix the cabs would be a start. If after streamlining that the municipalities decide it might make sense to start cooperating on trash collection, snow removal, or whatever, then so be it. Really what we need more than anything is a forum in which the cities and towns that are all codependent can get together and talk about issues that effect the region as a whole.

A county is not the way to go about it, too much government, too much red tape, too much striping away of individual municipal self government. It would never fly in Massachusetts, or really most of New England. A "regional cooperative pact" could.

Massachusetts is the exception not the norm. Most other places in the country have county police department as opposed to 300 + smaller separate ones as Mass. has.
The Commonwealth of Virginia is notorious for its building / construction planning at the county level as opposed to the municipal level.(outside major urban areas).
Most other U.S. states don't have departments of public works in every single municipality. You'd have a county level roadworks crew that re-constructs all roads within that county. So you never have days where a city/town's roadworks crews have nothing to do.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

This. Regional cooperation is what is needed. It needn't be accomplished through an official restructuring.

The new Mayor (elect) of Cambridge, Leland Chung and City of Boston Councilor, Tito Jackson held the first joint Boston-Cambridge City Council meeting at the Museum of Science (since it straddles both borders) perhaps Cambridge will move in the direction of increased and better cooperation with Boston etc.
--
Boston and Cambridge City Councils Unite Around Retention Issues
http://thefabempire.com/2013/04/02/boston-and-cambridge-city-councils-unite-around-retention-issues/

Cambridge-Boston summit seen as a step toward cooperation
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridg...ton-meeting-seen-as-a-step-toward-cooperation

 

[davem]

Massachusetts is the exception not the norm. Most other places in the country have county police department as opposed to 300 + smaller separate ones as Mass. has.
The Commonwealth of Virginia is notorious for its building / construction planning at the county level as opposed to the municipal level.(outside major urban areas).
Most other U.S. states don't have departments of public works in every single municipality. You'd have a county level roadworks crew that re-constructs all roads within that county. So you never have days where a city/town's roadworks crews have nothing to do.

Okay, but this IS Massachusetts. I'm trying to be realistic here, and changing the ways things have been done since 16-whenever isn't going to happen.

 

[George_Apley]

Massachusetts is the exception not the norm. Most other places in the country have county police department as opposed to 300 + smaller separate ones as Mass. has.
The Commonwealth of Virginia is notorious for its building / construction planning at the county level as opposed to the municipal level.(outside major urban areas).
Most other U.S. states don't have departments of public works in every single municipality. You'd have a county level roadworks crew that re-constructs all roads within that county. So you never have days where a city/town's roadworks crews have nothing to do.

So we should embark on a huge, and probably doomed, social engineering program to stop MA from being unusual?