Editorial
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
Want smaller government?
Support consolidation.
Most people agree, smaller local government is best. Less expensive and more efficient, it’s clearly superior to bigger government. But for proponents and opponents of consolidation, the agreement quickly dissolves.
The opponents of consolidating The City of Saugatuck Douglas routinely assert that bigger government will be the result. An example: their website reprints part of a 2010 Michigan Township Association news article opposing consolidation. It ends with this quotation from the MTA executive director: “Making smaller governments into bigger governments will most certainly drive the cost of government up, not down.” Yup Bigger government ought to be avoided.
The opponents of consolidating The City of Saugatuck Douglas routinely assert that bigger government will be the result. An example: their website reprints part of a 2010 Michigan Township Association news article opposing consolidation. It ends with this quotation from the MTA executive director: “Making smaller governments into bigger governments will most certainly drive the cost of government up, not down.” Yup Bigger government ought to be avoided.
But here’s the rub: By any definition, consolidation is actually about making government not bigger, but smaller! When our two cities come together, not only will the new city government’s administrative overhead be dramatically smaller (because one entire city council, a city manager, a mayor, and several other redundant functions will be eliminated), but newfound efficiencies in areas like public works will mean that fewer people and less equipment will be needed by the new city. One public works garage, not two. One city hall, not two. That’s smaller government by anyone’s math.
It shouldn’t be complicated, but sometimes people get confused. One vocal opponent of consolidation--a sitting city council member--recently challenged a CGC member face-to-face, saying, “How can you possibly support bigger government?”
When he responded that he didn’t, and asked what she meant, her retort was, “Well, before consolidation, there would be two cities of about a thousand people each, but after consolidation, it’d be just one bigger city of 2,000.”
She appeared stunned when he told her she was citing population (which would indeed be larger in the consolidated city), not the size of the government (which, after consolidation, would definitely be smaller).
It actually is sort of stunning.
It shouldn’t be complicated, but sometimes people get confused. One vocal opponent of consolidation--a sitting city council member--recently challenged a CGC member face-to-face, saying, “How can you possibly support bigger government?”
When he responded that he didn’t, and asked what she meant, her retort was, “Well, before consolidation, there would be two cities of about a thousand people each, but after consolidation, it’d be just one bigger city of 2,000.”
She appeared stunned when he told her she was citing population (which would indeed be larger in the consolidated city), not the size of the government (which, after consolidation, would definitely be smaller).
It actually is sort of stunning.
