There’s one favorite response by “county” voters opposing a new government for our community We don’t want Memphis coming out here.
It’s a glimpse into how complete the denial is about the interlocking relationship between the city and the suburbs. It’s also a glimpse into the self-delusion that denies the obvious: Memphis is already there, and if they don’t like, they need to do something dramatic to shake and change our community’s trajectory.
As we’ve said frequently, the problems facing our community – loss of jobs, business investment, talent and hope – are regional in nature. They are not confined to the city limits of Memphis.
More to the point, City of Memphis already controls most of the unincorporated area’s land use and zoning through its extraterritorial rights, including most of the area to be annexed by the smaller cities.
Tale of the Tape
First, regional issues. Shelby County is the economic engine for our MSA. Most of the jobs are here and most incomes are here, but without doing something to shake up things, it’s undeniable that the troubling indicators here will only fester.
For example, the poverty rate in every municipality in Shelby County is going in the wrong direction. Poverty rates in Arlington and Millington are in double digits. Although the other towns’ rates are less than double digits, they are still moving in the wrong direction.
The poverty rate in Collierville is up 75% from 2000 to 2008; Germantown’s is up 19%. Shelby County’s is up 17%.
To underscore the importance of a strong regional hub and the regional nature of our problems, the poverty rate in DeSoto and Tipton Counties are up 44% and 45% respectively in eight years. Desoto County’s rate is now 10.2% and Tipton County’s rate is 17.6%.
Togetherness
Of if you are one of those unfortunate people who don’t like Memphis because it’s full of black people, you simply are living in the wrong place, and it won’t hurt our feelings if you move away. The African-American population is up in every part of Shelby County except Germantown.
For example, African-American population in Shelby County increased 4.3% from 2000 to 1008. In Collierville, African-American population increased 30%, and it went up 98% in Bartlett and 80% in DeSoto County.
If there’s ever been a mandate to end the division in our community and to rid ourselves of politicians who peddle divisiveness as their campaign strategies, it should be these trend lines. The axiom is true: We are all in this together and if nothing changes, we all go down together.
One Boat
But there’s more than statistics to indicate that the rhetoric about “Memphis coming out here” is wrongheaded. There is also Memphis’ extraterritorial jurisdiction.
It’s this way that Memphis is already “out in the county” through a state law that gives it authority to “regulate and restrict the location of land uses and buildings within a 5-mile radius” of its city limits. The state law establishing this power essentially only applied to Memphis and a zoning ordinance setting it up was passed May 3, 1960.
It means that five miles beyond the Memphis city limits, Memphis City Council has control over land use, building approvals and zoning requests.
Draw a line five miles out that follows the Memphis city limits of Memphis (etjmapJuly,2010 ), and for all intents, you have covered almost all of Shelby County. The only area not covered is the northeast corner of Shelby County and a small strip west of Millington to the Mississippi River.
In other words, Memphis already controls the physical quality of life in the reserve areas of Collierville, Bartlett and most of Millington, Lakeland, and Arlington.
Strange Moments in Government
This power has resulted in some of local government’s strangest moments. For example, it meant that when requests for zoning in the Bartlett annexation reserve area came up, the city that would ultimately annex the area – Bartlett – did not even have a vote on what goes into its own reserve area.
But City of Memphis did, and the unholy alliance for so many years between local developers and City Council members produced land uses that the municipalities would never have allowed or wanted. But there was no reason for the Council members to care since they would never annex the area and pay for the services there.
Rightly, Bartlett officials tried to fight the process, but the Tennessee Attorney General upheld the five-mile power in 2003.
Getting It Right
While Shelby County Government enjoyed a similarly cozy relationship with developers, it was City of Memphis’ attitude that was ultimately most self-destructive. After all, City Council (prior to the current one) was a happy co-conspirator in creating the sprawl which choked their own city and a willing accessory to hollowing out Memphis.
The new charter filed this week and put on the ballot for November 2 would eliminate this strange alternative reality, but it seems that the town mayors remain so locked into their position that even common sense benefits escape their attention. It’s enough to make reasonable people question whether there was anything that the Charter Commission could have written that would move the town mayors out of their default positions of opposition.
Local government is often a maze and a parallel universe, but this five-mile law is the poster child for an illogic that ended up producing more than political manipulations. It ended up more accurately producing growth patterns in our county that was unsustainable and unconscionable.
My (tentative) opposition to consolidation has nothing whatsoever with a fear of Memphis coming to the burbs, or a fear or hatred of black people. Its a shame that the proponents of this proposal appear to be unable to discuss it without lowering themselves to calling all those who disagree with them racists or uninformed. You have written this kind of screed many times, and I’m sure you will be surprised to find that it doesn’t motivate anyone to change their minds. Let’s debate the proposal like adults and stop the name calling.
Some people just can’t read beyond their own opinions. I don’t see you calling anyone racists although there are a lot of them all over this county. And it’s hard to say that people out there aren’t uninformed since they are and they are proud that they’ve already made their mind up before even hearing the facts. And as usual, people against it want to be anonymous and as usual, they don’t even reply to the substance of this post.
If he wants to debate the proposal like adults, what’s his/her opinion about the 5-mile limit and doing away with it? What’s his opinion of all the people who say they’ll vote against consolidation because they don’t want Memphis coming to get them? What’s his opinion of us all sinking or swimming together?
Who’s the name caller?
an anonymous person ripping another anonymous person for being anonymous is rich.
Look, I’m all for talking this thing to death and am happy to talk about specific details all day long. But what I am objecting to is how some start the debate by proclaiming that those who are against it are either 1) scared of african americans or 2) don’t want Memphis’ problems coming to them or something like that. This is what I read this post as doing. I didn’t call anyone any name. If I did, point it out.
Are there racists out there? Are there uninformed people out there? Sure. But does one have to be those things to be against, or skeptical of, consolidation? Of course not, and you cheapen your side of the argument by suggesting otherwise.
I find the comment about Memphis having to approve a project in the Bartlett reserve area quite compelling. As a Memphian, I’d hate to lose the power… but if we have used it irresponsibly for everyone involved, why wouldn’t the other cities want to wrestle that control away? I fear I am missing something.
Anonymous 12:21:
Sorry, we’re just catching up. Just for the record, we haven’t just begun to “start the debate.” We’ve been writing about a better form of government for five years. You’re just coming in to read one chapter of a long story. We’ve written about the details, the comparisons to other cities, and the other facts for years.
But back to the point of this post, the most common response from opponents to consolidation outside Memphis is that “they don’t want Memphis coming out here.” (Sadly, there is a racial undertow to many of these comments.) Our point is that if you kid yourself that this isn’t already a fact of life, you really aren’t even trying to find out the facts.
Anonymous 12:21 here. I wasn’t trying to say we were just starting the debate in the way you say. You guys have been all over this issue for a long time, I understand that. You know the issues and can articulate your point of view quite well, whether I agree with it or not.
What I mean was when a particular discussion is started, like today by your post, it too often starts by attacking the motives of those with whom you disagree. And no I am not an idiot; I understand that there are racists out there who don’t want to have anything to do with Memphis for that reason. Trust me, I get that. But I really don’t think that is the primary motivator of the majority of folks out there. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not sure you can prove that you are right. But that’s not my motivation, and I would hope to admit you have no reason to suggest otherwise. I would hope you are willing to admit that there are people of good will out here who have issues with the idea of consolidation and are not motivated by racism, and that one can be skeptical of consolidation with race having nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you are willing to concede that, I’ll consider that progress. But if all that is going to happen from here to November is the pro side calling everyone else racist and scared of change and the other side refusing to discuss it at all or just whining about crime or skin color or whatever, then we are really wasting our time with this whole thing. Because if this vote were held today, your side would lose, and you won’t convince anyone in the county to change their minds with the tact you are currently taking. Let’s have a civil debate devoid of attacks on the other side’s motivations.
Anonymous @ 2:26
How would you prove your proposition?
Do you have any evidence or anecdote to suggest your position is good faith without race as a factor or can you think of any credible reason other than race for the opposition?
I’d like to read it.
Brian, I am telling you race has nothing to do with my opposition. I really shouldn’t have to do more at this point. You do not know me and have no reason to think I am lying. I have said nothing that could suggest that I am lying. Unless, of course, from your point of view I must be racist to be against consolidation. And if that’s really what you think then we have nothing to discuss. I have been trying all day to simply have someone on your side of this argument concede that not everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a racist, in order to begin an actual dialogue on the pros and cons of the proposal and amazingly I have failed. If this is all your side has, you’d better get ready for a big loss in November. And if you are really incapable of granting to the other side of the argument an assumption that they are proceeding in good faith, I feel sorry for you, because that’s no way to go through life
Anon 9:55, why don’t you give us some of your reasons against then? Many of us have been asking questions about consolidation, debating this issue and researching it for years and the vague responses against it sound like reasons more often than not rooted in racism and a fear of “those people coming to my part of town and ruining it.” If that’s not why you oppose, then please enlighten us to your reasoning. The opponents to consolidation remind me of the tea partiers who also say their issues have nothing to do with racism. Yeah, right.
Weelll..
Any development coming into the Reserve Areas (well it COULD happen again, someday!) will have to enter into a subdivision contract with the responsible city for sewer and water extensions, unless memphis is willing to extend those urban level services into an area they can’t annex.
Those contracts nearly always have (and presumably will) include a petition for annexation if it’s feasible for the adjacent city to do so-they want to issue the building permits and have construction review/control over the development.
The annexation is usually submitted concurrent with the 1st draft of the subdivision plans to the municipality-or LUCB.
Actions of the LUCB/Commission/clownsil on the subdivision are rendered moot by the annexation, which usually becomes effective 90 or so days from the 1st reading.
And the band plays on…
Some are likely against it because of race, some because of big bad Memphis coming to them and the image of high taxes and bad schools, some (especially inner city) fear losing power of one sort or another.
So far I’ve only heard of smaller, individual reasons for being against it. The voter decision should be what’s best, overall for this area, not what serves or doesn’t serve one’s own interest. I am studying it but consolidation has generally been good for cities.
@ Anonymous 9:55
I just want to know why you oppose it. You say people think it’s all about race, I haven’t ever said that. I just want to now what your reasons are. Maybe I could be on board if they were plausible.
You said:” I have been trying all day to simply have someone on your side of this argument concede that not everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a racist, in order to begin an actual dialogue on the pros and cons of the proposal and amazingly I have failed. ”
It’s bad form.
You want people that haven’t even voiced an argument with you to concede something they never thought in the first place in my case and that is bad form. It’s not amazing at all that you are getting no traction in your “supposedly argued with, demanded without any quid pro quo” concession.
I had no argument in the first place but, now I will make an equally idiotic demand on you, concede without argument hat you actually have no points to deliver that would convince anyone that you aren’t arguing for racist reasons. I’m not saying your a racist or that you should admit to being one, just concede that you have no points to prove that you aren’t arguing based on racist reasons without arguing.
OK?
As far as I can see, the other side at least brought some points to the table, you brought accusations with no point. You COULD begin a dialogue by bringing points to the table. But you didn’t.
That’s bad form, a shoddy attempt at a re-frame and I will now have to shoot down your mythos and supplant it with my own.
Happy now?
What happens to City taxes when and if we consolidate Memphis City with Shelby the County? I assume the County taxes which we all pay must go up to make up for the City of Memphis taxes which went away, correct? Any ideas anyone?
These are great posts! Everybody knows the only reason to be “conservative” is that you’re racist.
Against consolidation? You wanted to “move to a better school district” or “had to move away because it wasn’t safe for grandma to step outside the house” she’d lived in for 60 years? “Yeah, right.” (Thanks, Adrienne, you’re the greatest!)
The tea party movement? Well, maybe it IS the same strand of thought, and many of the same people, behind the Ross Perot candidacies. Yeah, yeah, they helped elect Bill Clinton twice (without a majority), but that was then. They’re against us now. Obviously racist!
You’re not a fan of Barack Obama? Don’t like blending the best of LBJ economics and Jimmy Carter foreign policy? You racist! (This blog, September 17, 2009.)
Weren’t a great fan of the Sonia Sotamayor nomination? Racist! (September 17, 2009.)
Approve of the Arizona immigration law that SCM read and studied so carefully? You’re a racist! (May 11, 2010.) (Hey, are Hispanics a different race from white folk? Oh well, who cares when there are epithets to throw!)
Are you uncomfortable tampering with the same social foundation that every human society in history, in every place, in every time, in every culture, has agreed upon, and sanctioning what was just 20 years ago diagnosed in DSM as a mental pathology? Why, you irrational, despicable bigot! (August 5, 2010.)
See how it works? We can call everybody who disagrees with us bigots and racists! Just like our Journo-list heroes said! We don’t need to explain any of our positions! We don’t have to think through any of our agenda, much less articulate why it’s good! We’re always right, and the other side is always evil! And best of all, it always WORKS! It NEVER gets predictable! Nobody EVER tires of hearing it! Nobody ever tunes it out! Repeatedly charging racism doesn’t empty the word of all meaning! The very best thing we can do for our party is keep insulting the independents who elected Barack Obama, and accusing them of racism!
Hey, we didn’t get to 16% approval* in only 18 months for nothing!
* http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance
L.J. Smith
You might want to read both previous posts found here at SCM or the actual charter document before making assumptions. Much of the charter’s work has been centered on tax rates. Please conduct your research before making false assumptions.
Taxes are frozen for a period of years, LJ, to address this. But let’s talk about whether taxes will go down, which is one of the great promises of this whole affair. There is nothing in the charter that suggests that the taxes will decrease to the extent promised by the pro consolidation folks. Full civil service protection is built into the charter, so no one loses their job on consolidation. When it happens, the 2 50 employee IT departments, just for example, merge and become one 100 employee department. There is no force reduction. The only reductions will come from natural attrition and retirement, along with any for cause firings that might happen. So the only way that the costs of running government go down, at least the manpower costs, will be through a rather slow and unpredictable process of waiting for people to retire or leave. I confirmed this in a meeting with Brian Stevens. So we don’t know whether or how much costs, and then taxes, will go down and we don’t know how long it will take for any decrease to occur. Meanwhile, we will have all the county and city employees to pay for and county and city debt to pay. So how do we know costs will go down, in the next 5 years lets say, sufficiently for their to be a meaningful tax decrease that would attract new business? I don’t think we do.
When viewing consolidation through tax tinted glasses, are those who argue consolidation will result in an increase in taxes actually under the impression that the status quo government structure will yield either a stable tax rate or a reduction in taxes in the future? If they are, they have not been paying very close attention.
I have no idea what impression “those” are under. Allz I know if that rebuild government is under the impression that a reduction in taxes is what this will accomplish. From their website – “In the long-term, the only way to bring down taxes is to cut spending, and that’s exactly what this new metro government does.”
One of the primary arguments for consolidation made by rebuild government and others is that by combining the governments, we create “efficiencies” which will lower taxes and thereby make the area more attractive to businesses and potential residents. My point is that those cost savings are theoretical, the amounts of any cost savings are undeterminable and far off into the future, so the impact of consolidation on the area’s ability to attract new business via lower taxes is really in question.
I have no idea whether taxes will eventually go up and don’t really care to have that argument. My point is consolidation as drafted fails to achieve one of its primary goals – lowering costs and thereby taxes – or at least does nothing to insure that this goal can be reached.
Undeterminable?
Lemme see, Nashville’s city gov is half Memphis city gov size and they pay less than 1/2 taxes.
I’d say it’s very “determinable” what will happen after consolidation.
Dead weight will be dropped no matter what, because, we can’t afford it, PERIOD.
Deal with it.
Wouldn’t matter if you didn’t consolidate, still can’t afford it, but, with no remedy in sight, you can watch the entire city of Memphis evaporate. It’s boiling now.
I really don’t think you can compare the Nashville situation with ours. There are any number of factors that have impacted nashville’s growth v Memphis. Its not all because of consolidation. But no need to get all ALL CAPS on me about it. Brian you have proven yourself pretty much incapable of reasoned, intelligent conversation about this so see ya buddy. When this thing goes down in November, I want you to remember that your attitude is one of the big reason for the defeat.
Anon 8:26
While many of us are aware that there are significant differences between Nashville and Memphis, would you care to actually support your statement with specific examples? So far, in this particular discussion, I have seen little effort from those who would oppose consolidation in providing specific reasons for their position. For example, one individual who state that tax savings that would occur via consolidation are purely theoretical. The statement goes on to read “I have no idea whether taxes will eventually go up and don’t really care to have that argument. My point is consolidation as drafted fails to achieve one of its primary goals – lowering costs and thereby taxes – or at least does nothing to insure that this goal can be reached”. If this point is critical enough to state that the charter commission has failed in its efforts and is thus a reason to oppose the effort, then you should be both able and willing to defend such a stance. If one has no idea whether taxes will increase or decrease, then how can one state that one of the primary goals of consolidation cannot be met? Such opposition as stated lacks any foundation.
My concerns about the cost/taxes issue were articulated at 9:58. No one has responded to those concerns.
You are misinterpreting my comment about not wanting to talk about taxes going up. Let me explain – the anti side loves to argue that taxes will go up; your side sees this as a scare tactic and dismisses it. This is not a particularly productive use of our time, in my opinion. So I have no desire to argue about whether, in 3-4 years, taxes will rise or not. My point is that there is nothing in the charter that insures that taxes will go down because there is no mechanism by which costs of running government can be lowered substantially in the short or medium term, for the reasons I already stated at 9:58. Given that the idea that taxes will decrease is one of the primary ideas driving the pro consolidation movement, I’d say the charter’s inability to deliver on that promise is a problem. Most people who are for this seem to think that once consolidation occurs, government operations will suddenly streamline and the workforce will fall accordingly. All I am saying is that’s not true, a fact confirmed to me by Brian Stevens. Now please tell me how this is wrong, because if consolidation really can deliver what is being promised, I’m all for it, whether my taxes as a county tax payer go up or not, quite frankly.
Nashville/Davidson County has a lot fewer people than Shelby County so it’s not a vaild comparison to say combined gov’t of Memphis/Shelby should be the same size. However, Memphis/Shelby does need to be downsized considerably, that much is certain. We cannot continue to have such a bloated local government payroll. We flat out cannot afford to operate it as a countywide employment program.
I did not misrepresent anything. I used your text specifically and in fact used far more than I was probably necessary in order to ensure nothing was taken out of context. Seeing as the entirety of each statement is easily referenced, neither you nor anyone else should feel like they are being misrepresented.
That said, is your key concern that a goal which consolidation seeks to achieve will not materialize in a time frame you find acceptable? So far the fact that taxes will not be affected in the short term and the fact that rightsizing will occur over a period of years seems to be the only facts you have regarding taxes post consolidation. Where we differ is you limit the future prospects of a consolidated government to the timeframe you deem acceptable which is fair enough. For many people results simply can never happen fast enough. You assume that many others believe that consolidation will immediately impact the size of local government by imposing your view of appropriate timelines on everyone else. The rest is opinion to which, of course, everyone is entitled.
What I do understand and personally hold as my opinion is that consolidation will provide the ability for Memphis and Shelby County to operate more efficiently in the future. For me, that future is not limited to 2-5 years but is instead the next 25 or 50 years. For someone that is hardly concerned with tax rates and their future prospects under a consolidated government you have certainly managed to avoid any other benefits to pick nits.
Oh please. No one is selling this plan on the basis you are suggesting – 25 to 50 years down the road everything will be peachy. No one knows what 25 years from now looks like no matter what government we have, and no sane person tries to sell an already politically unpopular plan with the idea that the benefits will roll in 25 years from now. It would also be helpful to your side if you could argue with a tad less hostility toward those with whom you disagree.
I would suggest that you stop assuming what everyone else, including myself, believes and the basis for our opinions. I am very conscious of the fact that sometimes immediate satisfaction is not always either possible or beneficial over the long term. Will bike lanes magically and immediately decrease this city’s appallingly high obesity rate? Hardly. However, it does offer the opportunity to alter the current physical landscape in very real ways that will prove small, barely noticeable improvements immediately that can accumulate to represent major benefits in the next 10 to 15 years. Indianapolis has been very slow in its approach to consolidation and I fully expect that such a scenario is a possibility for our own city. You are correct that no one knows what the next 25 years will bring, but I can tell you that when taking the past 25 years into account under the existing governmental structure that this city and county’s trajectory is pretty bleak. I also wanted to confirm that your primary objection to consolidation is that it does not appear to reap the benefits you care about the most in a time frame you personally find acceptable. Even you admit that you cannot be certain of the community’s financial future beyond what you define as the “mid-term”. While 10 years might be too long for you, I would enthusiastically support a change that at least offers the opportunity that the next decade will see even slow improvement in our community’s ability to create a higher quality of life and compete on the national economic stage. This would be a dramatic change considering our current prospects. Your opinion regarding consolidation based on the issue of taxes and the size of local government over the short term is fine, but it by no means defines the opinions for all those around you.
Who is hostile? The only comment I bristled at even slightly was the idea that you were somehow “misrepresented”. If you are going to feign interest in a real discussion you might want to drop the attitude and the idea that that everyone apparently views the issue in the same timeframe and manner as yourself.
So no longer 25 to 50 years, huh, down to 10? Ok, fine. I would also enthusiastically vote for a plan that in 10 years would offer dramatic change. This plan does not appear to do that, for the reasons I have already stated that you still haven’t addressed. The drafters could have prepared a charter that did not specifically protect all current county and city employees and and said that during the 3 year tax freeze period, an efficiency study would be performed and all unnecessary jobs under the new structure would be eliminated. That would allow for rapid cost cutting, savings and tax reductions. Instead, they put in place a system that said everyone who has a job now keeps it and has full civil service protections. Retirement and natural attrition is the only way for those employees to go away, for those costs to disapppear, and for those opportunities to lower taxes accordingly to appear. I asked this of Brian Stevens and he said this was correct. Is it incorrect?
Before becoming so snivelly, you should go back and re-read my comments. I would also throw my support to a restructuring plan that would offer dramatic change in 25 years as well… without the attitude (so much for being able to have a rational discussion without the attitude I guess). You cannot show that reductions in the cost of government will not occur within 5, 10 or even 25 years post consolidation. You stated that after the 3 year “freeze” has expired, employee ranks will be open to being thinned via natural attrition and retirement. This could begin to add up to noticeable savings within 10 years and significant savings in the 25 year timeframe.
You continue to evade a basic issue here- you are looking for guaranteed savings within a short time frame. The metro charter states that in the long-term consolidation will lower costs associated with government operation. You suggest, that based simply on your opinion that consolidation will not result in savings within 5 years, which is apparently 5 years too many. So are you suggesting that we maintain the current structure which offers a very limited possibility of cost savings and restricts the ability to perform major structural reforms as a viable option to consolidation? That’s akin to passing up a “potentially” leaky lifeboat to stay on the Titanic. To go back to an earlier statement ”From their website – ‘In the long-term, the only way to bring down taxes is to cut spending, and that’s exactly what this new metro government does.’” In essence, you answered you own question and apparently did not realize it. You substituted the short term and midterm bias into this statement. There is no reason for me comment further on this specific point.
As for efficiency studies, how do you know that one will not be performed during the 3 year time frame? That is essentially what has been undertaken by Mayor Wharton in his effort to right size the city’s government and was a component of his campaign. At some point you are not arguing over taxes or leadership but are expressing personal pessimism over any change to the status quo.
By the way, Bryan Stevens did not create this Straw man- you did. Speaking of which, who is this “Bryan Stevens” person?
I think we have reached head banging against wall time. There are certain discussions that probably are better had in person, because you keep misstating what I say and missing the point. Its pointless to keep trying to correct you. But I would submit that I am not trying to change the local system of government on the promise of all kinds of wonderful things. I don’t have the burden of proof here. And the plan that has been published certainly does not guarantee any meaningful cost savings at all. You still haven’t addressed my specific point; you just keep complaining about my time horizon and moving yours. I wish you all the best, but I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns.
I agree. You point was well taken- several times- I simply wish you could have opened you mind to understating my perspective. You would do well to drop the condescending attitude towards those that disagree with you- it will allow for more pleasant experiences in the future. I am sorry you feel your comments were being misstated, but seeing as they were being taken in their entirety from your posts I suggest you do a more thorough job of accurately stating your opinion without referencing your own ideas as facts. As for time horizons, I simply suggested that I was looking for long term benefits and not narrow short term returns and I am sorry you were unable to understand that point. Timelines aside, I suggest that your pessimistic attitude about the reality of local government might be the true source of your resentment towards those that holds opinions that differ from yours- it might also keep you from actually listening and understanding what they have to say.
I did answer your question: ”From their website – ‘In the long-term, the only way to bring down taxes is to cut spending, and that’s exactly what this new metro government does.’” In essence, you answered you own question and apparently did not realize it. You substituted the short term and midterm bias into this statement. There is no reason for me comment further on this specific point.
I still wish someone would clarify who this “Brian Stevens” person is that Anon rellies on so heavily for their information. Any chance they are reffering to Brian Stephens?
Now that was snivelly.
Anonymous:
Here’s the thing for us. Opponents are always asking for the last detail for what the new government can do although the lessons of other cities who have modernized their governments are clear.
Can you provide any details about what this community will look like if we do nothing? It’s always a moment of cognitive disonance that people who are most outspoken about how bad things are here seemed mired in the dysfunction. Maintaining the status quo is a prescription for disaster. Can you offer up any research or statistics that show that things are going to improve if we just keep things as they are?
SCM;
Nobody is saying “do nothing” especially not those opposed to consolidation. In fact, they have advocated for functional consolidation, combining city and county departments which would result in reduced costs and eliminate payroll duplications.
And the benefits to the city and county would be realized long before a consolidated Metro government takes over in 2014.
Why hasn’t Wharton moved forward in consolidating functions in the ten months he has been in office if he is truly serious about streamlining city government and reducing costs? Anyone? Moreover, I am astounded that he has been so slow to clean house in Fleet Services one of the most egregious cases of systemic corruption and incompetence since the Rape Crisis Center debacle. What’s is he waiting for? Superman? He entered office with a mandate to deliver on his campaign promises and is a seasoned administrator — there is no excuse. If he can’t deliver results what makes you think a new untested group will fare any better at managing a bloated and inefficient workforce?
If this referendum passes, the city and county will have absolutely no incentive to work towards improving anything until 2014. In fact, it will be a powerful disincentive to accomplish anything that would address our problems.
I call foul on the sky is falling hyperbole. I challenge one politician who is promoting consolidation to propose one department (planning?), one contract (tax collections), or one function (911 dispatch services) for functional consolidation and let’s see if it succeeds. A dry run if you will.
And BTW, please refrain from patronizing comments such as “Can you provide any details about what this community will look like if we do nothing.” You don’t know, nobody knows.
Bunch of interesting comments. First to the ‘Anonymous’ poster, you did fine articulating your point. The folks responding to you just seem angry for whatever reason. My only guess is they do not get a lot of opposing opinions here so they are not quite sure how to handle it.
Here are the problems of consolidation from someone that has zero understanding of Memphis (sadly enough, this would be true of any city). Let me take a big leap here.
– Many people in Shelby outside of the city think that Memphis politicians are corrupt
– Many people in Shelby outside of the city think that the Memphis politicians do not make tough decisions that help the city fix fundamental problems.
– Many people in Shelby outside of the city believe that Memphis city schools are bad.
So assuming that is all true (maybe I am completely off my rocker here), why on earth would anyone want to merge or join forces with a city they have little faith in irrespective of how well put together the plan is.
If you want folks to buy into this plan the city should take some strong steps to prove it is going to do things the right way (not just spend a bunch of money having consultants draft a plan). Now, again I have only been here a few months so maybe Memphis city politicians rock and their schools rock even more. If not don’t act so surprised.
Anonymous, you have proven yourself to be a nutjob in a debate, incapable of reasoned debate. I hope you remember when you are defeated that your debate is the sole reason for the defeat.
Bravo.
Sound ridiculous?
It was more ridiculous when it came from you.
Consolidation in Nashville’s growth has nothing to do with why anyone should support Consolidation in Memphis?
I guess you’re just comfortable in your tiny box, but, you can’t keep the rest of us in there with you.
Mary:
“And BTW, please refrain from patronizing comments such as “Can you provide any details about what this community will look like if we do nothing.” You don’t know, nobody knows.”
Balogna, you can’t miss that if we do nothing that nothing new will happen, we’ll just go down the drain.
Maybe a change in the document to make it effective sooner is DEFINITELY called for.
Urbanaut,
This anonymous guy is a paid shill for the opposition employing nothing more than “watching too many Kojak episodes” version of semantic argument (as if it would sway anyone or even be plausible as a valid reason for changing even one mind), sans facts.
I suspect a curmudgeon.
I do enjoy my tiny box. Brian you can’t even copy my words right, let alone argue intelligently. SCM – I don’t know what happens if we do nothing any more than you do if we do something. That’s why its called the future. But I know that cities don’t need to consolidate to be successful
The city of Memphis should dissolve. Just let it go. Then you have “functional consolidation.”
I mean look at the good AC is doing. We haven’t had a real mayor in this town since at least when I moved back – 2004 – until now. Let’s try actual leadership and a good mayor before we start saying consolidation is all that can save us.
The bottom line is this plan is going nowhere in the burbs right now and is even drawing significant opposition in town (see the memphis flyer articles). So clearly, the consolidation issue has more problems that us paid shill curmudgeon Kojack fans out in the burbs. It might actually even be possible to be against this and not be racist!
I’m afraid that it’s replies like these that show without a doubt why Memphis is DEAD.
I hate to give even one point to anonymous, but, there is a point. If the city is only passing this doc to protect current bloated employee rosters, it’s gonna be a NO for me too.
Amend it to get rid of that pork barrel protection and it’s a yes today!
Anonymous,
If the mayor is behind this then that’s as good as saying it needs to pass, FYI.
The reason it’s drawing opposition is “disinformation” perpetrated by our bought-off idiotic no research media reporting. We have the shallowest reporting in he country and that is one BIG reason WHY Memphis is so messed up now, no one keeping watch, media not serving it’s basic purpose.