Local officials in Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, California and other states are considering municipal mergers, which some see as the only way to preserve services amid a historic economic downturn. Zionsville, Ind., combined with two townships last year, and political and economic pressures are pushing other communities in that direction. In California, some cities are outsourcing services to their counties. In Michigan, politicians in Detroit and neighboring Hamtramck say merging the two governments might save the dollars needed to stay afloat.
----------------------
7 comments:
Merger sounds much better than the "Master Association/Sub-Association" approach used in the Community Corporation industry. Of course, cities actually provide services whereas the Master Association/Sub-Association model appears to just create more ways to skin homeowners unlucky enough to own HOA-burdened housing.
Detached unit CIDs could also potentially merge to gain better economies of scale and reorganize as special districts or municipalities as part of a local government deprivatization strategy.
"Economies of scale" was one of the myths behind Privatopia to begin with. You know, "affordable because everyone shares in the cost" - except that privatization simply ensure more serfs to keep feeding money into the trough of the vendors.
Deprivatization would be necessary to actually create a chance for the serfs to be better off.
> "Economies of scale" was one of the myths behind Privatopia to begin with.
> You know, "affordable because everyone shares in the cost"
Like "collective bargaining"; ie, HOAs allow homeowners to collectively bargain for goods and services.
Yet the contrast between the conservative/libertarian/AynRandian position on labor unions vs HOA unions demonstrates that their philosophies have descended into a parody of corporatism at the expense of economic freedom and liberty.
Mandatory membership in a labor union as a condition of employment is something that conservatarians want regulated, if not prohibited ("right-to-work" laws), while mandatory membership in an HOA union as a condition of home ownership is celebrated as a free-market contract (ignoring the fact that HOAs are mandated by governments, and the so-called "contract" fails so many requirements of Rational Choice Theory necessary for a free market to work).
Conservatarians support "paycheck protection" laws, because they believe that labor union members shouldn't be forced to fund political activities they disagree with. Yet they have no objections to an HOA union using a homeowner's own money against him, both in court and in the legislature.
While conservative/libertarian/AynRandians are quick to recognize the corruption and thuggery and influence of organized crime in labor unions, they turn a blind eye to the corruption and thuggery and extortion rackets by HOA unions, because the homeowner consented to be abused.
And the corrupt manner in which labor union elections are conducted is evidence that labor unions need to be regulated. But HOA union elections are wonderful examples of small-scale democracy in action, where Americans are told that they have more influence than they do with their local city council.
Given a choice, conservative/libertarian/AynRandians can be counted on to throw individual American home owners under the bus of collectivism, if the Communism in question is a privatized corporation. Because these people are as ignorant of the real world consequences of their theories as your typical college-campus communist wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt driving around in a Prius sporting a "Hope and Change" bumper sticker.
Fortunately or unfortunately there are many associations that provide extensive services including roads, storm water management, parks, etc. That is why the local governments required them in the first place, to push the costs out of the government budget while retaining the property tax revenue.
But back to Evan's actual post and point:
There are certainly massive economies of scale to be considered and captured at the municipal level. I was always amazed growing up in NJ that you could drive 15 miles and pass through a half a dozen or more different towns in 30 minutes. For example, Bergen County NJ is 247 square miles of heavily developed urban/suburban environment. And yet it has 70 distinct municipalities, each with its own police, fire, public schools, town council, road, etc. departments. I have got to believe that some consolidation is possible and practical there and elsewhere.
Finally Fred raises an interesting point in that merging associations can result in communities that are larger, more complex, and potentially more self-sufficient than the prevailing city or county. Could they morph into their own political entity? How is their political force coordinated? How does local politics, funding, and service levels change when there are significant portions of the population lodged in a small number of communities? What happens to the tax base of a municipality if a large community or group of communities tries to become a seperate political entity?
Tom Skiba @ April 26, 2011 8:38:00 AM CDT said...
the local governments required them in the first place, to push the costs out of the government budget while retaining the property tax revenue.
That is a major admission coming from the president of the HOA lobby.
I guess the whole "HOAs are a lifestyle that people choose" Communisty Party line just isn't believable anymore, so the tune is changing. As regular readers of this blog know, the explosive growth of HOAs has been supply driven, not demand driven, creating major distortions in the housing market with fewer choices for consumers.
For those of you not familiar with the dynamic of governments mandating the existence of HOAs, listen to Shu Bartholomew's interview with Steven Siegal ( OnTheCommons.net , 4/28/2007).
Maybe Mr. Skiba's admission is a sign of a coming "preference cascade" following years of American homeowners being abused by the Community Associations Institute:
Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don’t realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it – but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.
This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers – or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they’re also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.”
Tom Skiba said...
Fortunately or unfortunately there are many associations that provide extensive services including roads, storm water management, parks, etc. That is why the local governments required them in the first place, to push the costs out of the government budget while retaining the property tax revenue.
******
That places CIDs squarely in the realm of public policy and clearly frames the policy issue of local government privatization. The question is do people want to effectively pay both public and private property levies (property taxes and HOA assessments) to finance two layers of local government? Those in existing CIDs can answer that question by opting for the status quo or deprivatizing. The voters and homebuyers can weigh in at the ballot box in local government elections.
Post a Comment