urbanSTL

Roy314 wrote:

dutchtowner wrote:County voters would never approve a merger. City voters wouldn't either, that is if the effort to streamline government and eliminate patronage offices was any indication.



Efforts would be better spent building city-county partnerships in specific areas akin to the zoo-museum district or the community college system. I think county voters could be coninced to support a merged, city-county police force, but only because they might assume that cops in the crime-plagued city know more about law enforcement.

Agreed. At this point in time, it would get less than 40% in both the City and County. There needs to be improvement in the City with respect to crime, education, and infrastructure before the County will take it seriously. But perhaps more importantly we need to dramatically raise the tax base in the City so the merger is seen as a partnership, instead of just County dollars going to City problems.

MattnSTL wrote:Both of you stop.

Grinding it out isn't enough. Let's go for broke.



That's essentially what Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark Nordenberg said yesterday as they launched a dramatic, united push to meld the city and county governments -- pronto. They want a ballot referendum next year, and they want it to pass.



Should they succeed, it would mark the biggest single change in the region's governance since the city and county were created, and maybe the biggest psychological shift since the steel industry left.



"This is a golden opportunity to really change the governments of this region for the next 100 years," said Mr. Onorato. "Don't underestimate the benefit of having the city and county united."



But between yesterday's long-bomb play call and any eventual touchdown is a field of uncertainty featuring rival officials, state legislators and the unpredictable winds of public opinion. The plan they've unveiled lists the very serious challenges they'll face, but says little about how they'd overcome them.



Yesterday wasn't about details. It was about framing a debate that should dominate the local political discourse this year, next and beyond, and could alter the civic language regardless of the outcome.



On one hand, the mayor, chief executive and chancellor presented a status quo that the chancellor said is "sentencing the region to continual economic decline."



On the other, they offered what the mayor called "something drastic and bold and different," which would include eliminating his job and shifting the entire 3,300-person, $424 million-a-year apparatus he oversees into a county structure that's twice as big. They've tried piecemeal cooperation, and they'll continue in that vein, but it's time to make two governments one, Mr. Ravenstahl said.



Will that work? Neither the 21-page report they presented nor a 60-page RAND Corp. study that backs it dare to predict cost savings or a miracle turnaround. RAND's researchers wrote that they could not find "an incontrovertible case for the link between consolidation and economic development."



He and others pointed to the 2000 union of Louisville, Ky., and Jefferson County. That's where the 13-member study committee led by Mr. Nordenberg went in July, after which Mr. Ravenstahl called it "no quick fix" for what ails Pittsburgh.



Research by Hank Savitch, the Brown and Williamson professor of urban and public affairs at the University of Louisville, suggests that it wasn't even a quick fix for that city's problems. He found no change in government's cost or the economy and argued that minority representation was reduced.



In Louisville, merger followed a 12-year city-county pact that ramped up cooperation.



Mr. Nordenberg's committee set the parameters for a referendum without determining how they can be respected.



It has to shield the city from service cuts, and the county taxpayers from the city's $768 million debt and $490 million pension shortfall. It has to "protect current employees" and ensure minority representation.



Solutions to any of those problems face being picked apart on both sides of the city line.



State Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, said she was worried that the city's debt can't be segregated from a merged balance sheet, and added the state won't pick up "$2 billion of debt resulting from mismanagement by the city. ... I won't commit to supporting a referendum now."



"What incentive is there for a city resident to buy into this notion?" asked City Council President Doug Shields. "I don't see why any reasonable person in the city of Pittsburgh would want to give up their local government" while still facing higher taxes to cover its old debts.



Mr. Ravenstahl said he was a consolidation skeptic until "the last couple of weeks."



Those were weeks of conflict with City Council over finances and separation of powers. They also were weeks when he perceived that the city had a tough time getting Harrisburg's ear when it came to addressing its fiscal problems.



"While I think we're doing good things, over the course of time it's just not going to be enough," he said. "Something big needs to happen here to change the course of events.