Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CTNotPC t1_jb79d17 wrote

We dont like change. We say we are progressive but the minute you want to optimize ways of government, the people that have been sucking on the sweet taste of tax payer funded careers will fight it with everything they got.

The county system would save us so much money. Imagine having an organized EMS management system for firefighters, police, health, education and management. Instead towns need to allocate these resources, share them, and when you call 911 for an ambulance, it may be coming from two towns over.

Even property taxes, car taxes, and water districts can be optimized with a county system lol

7

Justagreewithme t1_jb9j2v5 wrote

It’s not optimizing. As government gets bigger, it gets worse, with few exception. Bring your concerns to any city entity and see how you are treated compared to any small town. Services received are almost always worse.

0

CTNotPC t1_jb9m4av wrote

Absolutely not true.

What is bigger to manage, 169 micro governments that can’t efficiently agree on EMS, school, firefighter, police, public work projects vs 8 counties that can manage resources.

Right now the state forces towns to form their own groups to save money, like the Northwest Hills Council of Governments. Towns cant afford proper planning or employ people to meet the never ending state mandates on all towns, no matter their size. This is the only way some towns can meet state requirements.

We are so fractured and divided as a state that we waste resources (tax payer money) because of wasteful but required town expenditures. It would be far more efficient to have a county system. It would also standardize procedures.

2

Justagreewithme t1_jb9qur3 wrote

You are looking at it from a overall financial perspective, which is irrelevant to most people. Quality of services is vastly superior in small towns, because those services have to answer directly to a small entity. 169 micro governments don’t need to agree, because they have their own services and can make decisions for themselves.

0

CTNotPC t1_jb9ro9z wrote

Wait, are you saying people much rather be financially forced out of owning a home because of higher mill rates to sustain inefficient government but at least you get a lollipop and a smile when you ask to speak to the assessor? Efficiency is needed. Efficiency equals customer satisfaction.

1

Justagreewithme t1_jb9wzdu wrote

I’m saying it’s quite the opposite. Cities have massive mill rates and high taxes. Generally, the smaller the town the lower the taxes. Towns can adapt to their residents much more efficiently. My rural house cost half the amount of taxes of my urban house. It’s the city government that are larger that are inefficient. And once again, you are ignoring quality of services. If I have an issue, I can speak directly to my town manager. I can call a department and speak to a live person, not a phone tree. Good luck speaking directly to a mayor of a city and getting anything done. If I call police, they show up within 5 minutes. When I was in a city, i had it take as long as 5 hours.

0

[deleted] t1_jb9xym9 wrote

[deleted]

1

Justagreewithme t1_jba4vle wrote

Those towns can already combine services if they choose to. For example the Tyler Regional Animal Care Shelter, which was agreed to by Manchester, south Windsor and east Hartford. I think what’s being forgotten is that where you live is a choice. If you want big town services, move to a big town. Stop forcing every town to be like every other town. Towns with no officers can already purchase services from the state police via the resident trooper program.

3