Share Services: Towns Can Save By Tea...

Share Services: Towns Can Save By Teaming Up

There are 19 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Apr 7, 2009, titled Share Services: Towns Can Save By Teaming Up. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

More and more, Connecticut's cities and towns are comparing notes on how to make the municipal buck go further while trying to maintain the services their residents need.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

GreekChorus

Milford, CT

#1 Apr 7, 2009
The Courant finally gets it. For years it has trumpeted "regionalization," the one-size-fits-all solution that led to the abolition of county govenments a half-century ago.

The right approach is what is described here: municipalities regionalizing when it makes good sense and not regionalizing when it doesn't, and perhaps regionalizing with different neighbors for different purposes.
lip this

Danbury, CT

#2 Apr 7, 2009
The towns and cities talk to much and do too little. It should be mandated they combine services. Start with the worthless school boards. 5 regional school boards. Fire all the rest of the duplicative boards of ed, supers, secretaries...the state will probably save 4 billion a year.
medicontheedge

New Canaan, CT

#3 Apr 7, 2009
"sharing information about negotiating with unions" is collusion, and is ILLEGAL under the NLRB.
Maint

Deep River, CT

#4 Apr 7, 2009
medicontheedge wrote:
"sharing information about negotiating with unions" is collusion, and is ILLEGAL under the NLRB.
Perhaps, if information was shared on a regular basis, unions would not be needed........?
medicontheedge

New Canaan, CT

#5 Apr 7, 2009
Maint wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, if information was shared on a regular basis, unions would not be needed........?
perhaps if historically business' and companies did right by their employees as to safety, hours, pay, etc, that may be true.

big business has NOT EVER done the right thing unless forced to by unions and government regs.

there has been a direct correlation between the erosion of workers rights, benefits, and pay and the decline of unions.
do the math.

power to the people.
off the pigs.
Right On

United States

#6 Apr 8, 2009
It is time for regionalization of all small towns. For instance go into the Colebrook town hall, which is open 5 days a week 8 hours a day and you very seldom see anyone in there. It is a waste of tax payers money.
Taxpayer

Newington, CT

#7 Apr 8, 2009
Union hate efficiency. Keep up the good work.
GreekChorus

Milford, CT

#8 Apr 8, 2009
Right On wrote:
It is time for regionalization of all small towns. For instance go into the Colebrook town hall, which is open 5 days a week 8 hours a day and you very seldom see anyone in there. It is a waste of tax payers money.
The problem is that if you live in a small town like Colebrook regionalization requires you to be dumb enough to think that, once you're out-voted by your new partners, your property tax dollars are all going to come back to Colebrook. Regionalization is code for sucking money out of small town taxpayers who don't commit crimes, sell drugs or have illegitimate babies at taxpayer expense and using it to subsidize people in the cities who do those things. Barbara Kennelly and Bill Curry both had their gubernatorial campaigns flounder on their platform of property tax reform because many people didn't trust the legislature to replace the lost money fairly. Remember the debate where poor Barbara's campaign disintegrated on live television when she couldn't explain how she'd pay for the property
tax cuts she proposed?

Let the individual towns decide when a regional approach is best on an ad hoc basis, as many have done with schools, rather than imposing it from above.
C Check

Granby, CT

#9 Apr 8, 2009
medicontheedge wrote:
"sharing information about negotiating with unions" is collusion, and is ILLEGAL under the NLRB.
Show me your proof, specifically. Your statement seems hard to believe given free speech rights.
Please reference NLRB document and pages in your response.
The badger

Shelton, CT

#10 Apr 8, 2009
I've been saying this for years. One on the state's biggest expenses is aid to cities and towns.

It is redundant and wasteful and it must stop. Now.
Richard

United States

#11 Apr 8, 2009
Regionalization is the latest buzzword, and in some ways it indeed works well.

But the question must be raised: if the process becomes institutionalized, will it lead only to yet another superstructure of regional government added on top of the ones that we have?
Tommy

Ware, MA

#12 Apr 8, 2009
Richard wrote:
Regionalization is the latest buzzword, and in some ways it indeed works well.
But the question must be raised: if the process becomes institutionalized, will it lead only to yet another superstructure of regional government added on top of the ones that we have?
Regionalization means YOU PAY THE HARTFORD COURANT'S TAXES. It would result in a new layer of taxing bureaucracy. The new bureaucracy would be structured such that suburbs and Hartford have a vote proportional to their population PLUS additional votes subject to a liberal conjured up "need index" determined by such things as the number of underperforming school children, poor people, homeless, low income level and high crime resulting in Hartford having the votes to determine how money is spent. Don't believe it? There already is a defacto system similar to this in existence now - it's called Conn State Government which passes out more money to poorly run major cities than they pay in taxes to the state under the guise that those cities "have greater needs" and/or have "much untaxable State property."

Also, the only way for regionalization to save money is to eliminate elected and appointed bureaucrats at the local level. How many of those officials would be in favor of that. Mary Glassman, Simsbury's First Selectwoman, a staunch advocate of regionalization should demonstrate the courange of her convictions by eliminating her position as part of regionalization.
Tommy

Ware, MA

#13 Apr 8, 2009
The badger wrote:
I've been saying this for years. One on the state's biggest expenses is aid to cities and towns.
It is redundant and wasteful and it must stop. Now.
One is naieve to think that state aid to cities and towns would end under regionalization. That aid is power in the hands of the State Legislature and it would never give it up.
medicontheedge

New Canaan, CT

#14 Apr 9, 2009
GreekChorus wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that if you live in a small town like Colebrook regionalization requires you to be dumb enough to think that, once you're out-voted by your new partners, your property tax dollars are all going to come back to Colebrook. Regionalization is code for sucking money out of small town taxpayers who don't commit crimes, sell drugs or have illegitimate babies at taxpayer expense and using it to subsidize people in the cities who do those things. Barbara Kennelly and Bill Curry both had their gubernatorial campaigns flounder on their platform of property tax reform because many people didn't trust the legislature to replace the lost money fairly. Remember the debate where poor Barbara's campaign disintegrated on live television when she couldn't explain how she'd pay for the property
tax cuts she proposed?
Let the individual towns decide when a regional approach is best on an ad hoc basis, as many have done with schools, rather than imposing it from above.
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!
Vishnu Wahere

Amityville, NY

#15 Apr 9, 2009
Wow, can you imagine all of the money that would be save if Hartford County switched to a Metro police force in stead of every little city and town had its own force. It would greatly cut admistrative costs. Towns need to stop treating their local service like they are sacred cows that can't be shared with neighboring communities.
Vishnu Wahere

Amityville, NY

#16 Apr 9, 2009
lip this wrote:
The towns and cities talk to much and do too little. It should be mandated they combine services. Start with the worthless school boards. 5 regional school boards. Fire all the rest of the duplicative boards of ed, supers, secretaries...the state will probably save 4 billion a year.
Put it on the ballot. Let the people decide, not hack politicians and administrators that are trying to protect their own careers.
Vishnu Wahere

Amityville, NY

#17 Apr 9, 2009
GreekChorus wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that if you live in a small town like Colebrook regionalization requires you to be dumb enough to think that, once you're out-voted by your new partners, your property tax dollars are all going to come back to Colebrook. Regionalization is code for sucking money out of small town taxpayers who don't commit crimes, sell drugs or have illegitimate babies at taxpayer expense and using it to subsidize people in the cities who do those things. Barbara Kennelly and Bill Curry both had their gubernatorial campaigns flounder on their platform of property tax reform because many people didn't trust the legislature to replace the lost money fairly. Remember the debate where poor Barbara's campaign disintegrated on live television when she couldn't explain how she'd pay for the property
tax cuts she proposed?
Let the individual towns decide when a regional approach is best on an ad hoc basis, as many have done with schools, rather than imposing it from above.
You are wrong because you presume that a particular model would be adopted. Towns could negotiate with each other on services like garbage collecting/recycling, police, fire departments, snow removal, based on costs per household to deliver services. Towns could still opt to manage certain services own there own where it makes sense. Regionalized services works quite well in areas where it is used. Any increase in budgets would still need to be approved by the towns. You could not devise a more expensive way to deliver public services than we have now, if you tried.
medicontheedge

Rocky Hill, CT

#18 Apr 10, 2009
C Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me your proof, specifically. Your statement seems hard to believe given free speech rights.
Please reference NLRB document and pages in your response.
do your OWN research if you don't believe it is a fact. which it is.
medicontheedge

Rocky Hill, CT

#19 Apr 10, 2009
C Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me your proof, specifically. Your statement seems hard to believe given free speech rights.
Please reference NLRB document and pages in your response.
do your own research if you don't believe my statement is true.

which it is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Avon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Board of Selectmen Meeting My comments May 22 joan coe 1
News Deepwater Wind Outlines Solar Farm Proposed In ... May 21 ugh 1
News More Advice On Acura TL Transmission Failures A... (Apr '09) May 16 SharkHunter 325
News Backyard Chickens: More Connecticut Residents R... (Jul '10) May 14 Anonymous 10
Board of Selectmen Meeting May 8, 2017 My Comments May 8 joan coe 1
Board of Selectmen Meeting April 24, 2017 My co... Apr '17 joan coe 1
News Sessions Woods In Burlington Has It All For Nat... (Oct '08) Apr '17 Jaalynn 7

Avon Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Avon Mortgages