New counties (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 09:13:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  New counties (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: New counties  (Read 5816 times)
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« on: September 30, 2011, 05:56:56 PM »
« edited: September 30, 2011, 05:59:14 PM by Revivalism Revivalist »

This is due to a strong tradition of local self government, so they are not mere administrative regions of the central government.

Given the weakness of local government (or at least of democratic local government; perhaps this is the important distinction?) in most of the U.S. I'm not sure if that's really an answer. And, of course they aren't regions of central government, but they are administrative districts of the states, aren't they? This was a contested issue once, and local government (such as it was) lost.

A mantra of American local government law is "Municipalities are creatures of the state." Municipalities (including counties) have no power independent of the states and can be overridden on any issue or dissolved/reorganized at will by state government.

There are some exceptions to dissolution-at-will in states where the counties are defined in the state constitution, but that's pretty rare (and even there the state government could dissolve a county without consent of the county in question, it would just have to amend the state constitution to do it).
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2011, 10:25:57 PM »
« Edited: November 08, 2011, 10:27:34 PM by Verily »

A mantra of American local government law is "Municipalities are creatures of the state." Municipalities (including counties) have no power independent of the states and can be overridden on any issue or dissolved/reorganized at will by state government.
This is not a mantra of the local governments.  It is the mantra of the centralists.


I did not say it was a mantra of any political group. It is the absolute truth, the gospel of American municipal law. It can, of course, be changed by a state constitutional provision or amendment (which, of course, is state rather than local action), but it is the default rule and the truth in the vast majority of states.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2011, 11:46:04 PM »
« Edited: November 08, 2011, 11:48:39 PM by Verily »

With the exception of California, quite frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't have a movement towards county mergers all over the place, if not abolishing the idea of the "county" at all.  What a worthless subdivision in this day and age.

But, of course, no one would do that.  Except I think a bill was introduced in Nebraska's legislature, but that's about it.

Counties are a reasonably efficient scale to administer the courts, and they can be conveniently grouped for areas with smaller counties. They are also more effective than the state in maintaining local roads that are not in a city.

That's exactly why I think counties are ridiculous!  Just look at the counties of Michigan.  They're boxes that have no tie whatsoever to the underlying regions and communities they're suppose to represent.  So are Iowa's, and, well, pretty much everywhere else's.

I think the counties here are reasonably organic.

Solano? Alameda? Contra Costa? San Bernardino? Riverside? Placer? El Dorado? Nevada? Madera? Los Angeles?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2011, 11:57:25 AM »

With the exception of California, quite frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't have a movement towards county mergers all over the place, if not abolishing the idea of the "county" at all.  What a worthless subdivision in this day and age.

But, of course, no one would do that.  Except I think a bill was introduced in Nebraska's legislature, but that's about it.

Counties are a reasonably efficient scale to administer the courts, and they can be conveniently grouped for areas with smaller counties. They are also more effective than the state in maintaining local roads that are not in a city.

That's exactly why I think counties are ridiculous!  Just look at the counties of Michigan.  They're boxes that have no tie whatsoever to the underlying regions and communities they're suppose to represent.  So are Iowa's, and, well, pretty much everywhere else's.

I think the counties here are reasonably organic.

Solano? Alameda? Contra Costa? San Bernardino? Riverside? Placer? El Dorado? Nevada? Madera? Los Angeles?

I was referring specifically to the Bay Area here. While there are obviously exceptions (Fremont probably should be in Santa Clara, while Palo Alto might be better in San Mateo), the counties do represent discrete areas for the most part.

Okay, Solano, Alameda and Contra Costa still have clear problems.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.