Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: Verily on August 11, 2010, 09:53:24 AM



Title: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 11, 2010, 09:53:24 AM
In this thread, I will try to fix New Jersey. That is, I will attempt to combine and eliminate municipalities in New Jersey to reduce the severe problem of redundant (and costly) services. NJ currently has 566 municipalities; I hope to reduce that a maximum of 200.

I'll be using Dave's Redistricting App and will post updates periodically.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 11, 2010, 01:42:37 PM
This should be interesting. Bergen and Camden counties can certainly afford to be streamlined.

What's the opposite of boroughitis?


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 11, 2010, 02:16:20 PM
So, I actually went a little crazy and made a mere 100 municipalities. Counties like Warren would probably be pretty upset about containing only two municipalities, so I may redo parts of the map to get it to more like 150. Anyway, Bergen County to start. Proposed names are listed first, then current municipalities, then populations.


Generally speaking, I stayed within county lines and did not split current municipalities. There were exceptions.

()

1: Rutherford
Contains: North Arlington, Lyndhurst, Rutherford, East Rutherford, Carlstadt, Wallington, Wood-Ridge, Moonachie, South Hackensack (part)
Population: 87,601

2: West Hackensack
Contains: Lodi, Garfield, Saddle Brook, Elmwood Park, Rochelle Park, South Hackensack (part)
Population: 91,434

3: [In Hudson County]

4: Palisades
Contains: Fairview, Ridgefield, Palisades Park, Leonia, Fort Lee, Edgewater
Population: 127,140

5: Englewood
Contains: Englewood, Englewood Cliffs, Teaneck, Bogota, Ridgefield Park
Population: 98,020

6: Northern Valley
Contains: Tenafly, Bergenfield, New Milford, Dumont, Cresskill, Demarest, Haworth, Closter, Alpine, Oradell (part)
Population: 104,702

7: Hackensack
Contains: Hackensack, South Hackensack (part), Little Ferry, Teterboro, Hasbrouck Heights, Riveredge, Maywood, Paramus (part)
Population: 96,136

8: Ridgewood
Contains: Fair Lawn, Glen Rock, Paramus (part), Ridgewood
Population: 89,147

9: Westwood
Contains: Oradell (part), Emerson, Westwood, Norwood, Northvale, Rockleigh, Old Tappan, Harrington Park, Rivervale, Hillsdale, Woodcliff Lake, Washington, Park Ridge, Montvale
Population: 91,468

10: Ramapo
Contains: Midland Park, Wyckoff, Franklin Lakes, Oakland, Mahwah, Ramsey, Saddle River, Upper Saddle River, Ho-Ho-Kus, Waldwick, Allendale
Population: 109,192


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on August 11, 2010, 02:27:27 PM
What's the opposite of boroughitis?

http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/ward/new_structure/final_map.jpg


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Brittain33 on August 11, 2010, 02:27:59 PM
What were your criteria for merging towns?


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 11, 2010, 02:34:18 PM
What were your criteria for merging towns?

They had to have some level of shared commercial core(s), relatively similar demographics (but I bent this rule for the creation of urban cores, especially around Camden), logical geographic continuity (and similar geography). I also promoted urban cores, so for example Jersey City is up to over a half-million people on my map.

For most of this, I relied on my knowledge of the area. In South Jersey, I did a lot of Google Maps-ing to get a better feel for how communities fit together, but I probably did a better job in North Jersey.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 11, 2010, 02:57:03 PM
I can understand why you split South Hackensack (it isn't contiguous to begin with), but what justification do you have for splitting Paramus?


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 11, 2010, 03:05:09 PM
I can understand why you split South Hackensack (it isn't contiguous to begin with), but what justification do you have for splitting Paramus?

I took a sliver of SE Paramus (the area east of Forest Ave/Spring Valley Rd and south of Midland Ave) off to make the Hackensack-River Edge connection a little neater. Almost all of Paramus is in the "Ridgewood" municipality, and most of Paramus in the "Hackensack" municipality is Van Saun Park (which is county-owned) plus the easternmost bit of the commercial strip along Rte 4.

Before someone asks, Oradell's inexplicable extension east of the Hackensack River was lopped off and put in "Northern Valley"; the rest is in "Westwood". New Milford has been agitating to annex that chunk of Oradell for years.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 11, 2010, 09:52:22 PM
Here are Essex and Hudson Counties:

()

3: East Newark
Contains: East Newark, Kearny, Harrison
Population: 55,371

11: Newark
Contains: Newark, Irvington, East Orange, Orange
Population: 430,813

12: Montclair
Contains: Montclair, Bloomfield, Glen Ridge, Nutley, Belleville
Population: 151,350

13: Jersey City
Contains: Jersey City, Bayonne, Hoboken, Weehawken, Union City, Secaucus, North Bergen, West New York, Guttenberg
Population: 540,048

14: West Newark
Contains: Maplewood, West Orange, South Orange
Population: 81,363

15: Caldwell
Contains: Roseland, Essex Fells, Caldwell, West Caldwell, North Caldwell, Verona, Cedar Grove, Fairfield
Population: 62,332

16: Livingston
Contains: Livingston, Millburn
Population: 44,809


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 11, 2010, 09:55:51 PM
Livingston and West Newark could be combined, and Belleville and Nutley could go into Newark as well. Secaucus is out of place in Jersey City, but it doesn't really fit anywhere.

Also, I doubt the residents of "West Newark" would appreciate the name, but the name isn't that important. I considered calling it "Orange", but that would be pretty audacious considering that the current Orange is absorbed into Newark.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 12, 2010, 11:55:46 AM
Essex and Hudson Counties look reasonable. Secaucus would be a better fit in East Newark demographically, but it wouldn't be as good a fit geographically. West Newark could still be called West Orange, since it's possible that the current Oranges in Newark would still be referred to as such (i.e., the Orange section of Newark).

Also, could you give us the racial breakdown of Jersey City?


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: minionofmidas on August 12, 2010, 11:58:24 AM
I doubt the residents of "West Newark" would appreciate the name, but the name isn't that important. I considered calling it "Orange", but that would be pretty audacious considering that the current Orange is absorbed into Newark.

Which clearly calls for New Orange! :D

What would be the point of even keeping counties around with municipalities that large and "orderly"? Now that's going to be savings... Then you could limit this structure to only the megalopolitan parts of New Jersey and have the far northwest and far southeast retain the current structure (perhaps eliminating some of the very pointless municipalities). Of course, a "city" as large and diverse as that Jersey City would probably be well served by having at least some sort of community councils within it... though they wouldn't need to have any independent budgetary powers but just be given some play money per year from the city.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: minionofmidas on August 12, 2010, 12:03:48 PM
Also, could you give us the racial breakdown of Jersey City?
At Census 2000... 41% Hispanic, 33% Non Hispanic White, 13% Non Hispanic Black, 9% Asian


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 12, 2010, 12:05:08 PM
I doubt the residents of "West Newark" would appreciate the name, but the name isn't that important. I considered calling it "Orange", but that would be pretty audacious considering that the current Orange is absorbed into Newark.

Which clearly calls for New Orange! :D

What would be the point of even keeping counties around with municipalities that large and "orderly"? Now that's going to be savings... Then you could limit this structure to only the megalopolitan parts of New Jersey and have the far northwest and far southeast retain the current structure (perhaps eliminating some of the very pointless municipalities). Of course, a "city" as large and diverse as that Jersey City would probably be well served by having at least some sort of community councils within it... though they wouldn't need to have any independent budgetary powers but just be given some play money per year from the city.

Oddly enough, I was going to suggest New Orange as well...

I also agree that by consolidating municipalities, New Jersey could easily go the route of the New England states and abolish county government altogether.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 12, 2010, 12:13:12 PM
You can't get rid of Hoboken. That's practically the only place in New Jersey I've heard of.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 12, 2010, 12:15:05 PM
Also, I doubt the residents of "West Newark" would appreciate the name, but the name isn't that important. I considered calling it "Orange", but that would be pretty audacious considering that the current Orange is absorbed into Newark.

The name "Orange" carries with it about as much desirability of a rotting corpse. You'd be much better off selling the new town as Maplewood or Llewellyn.

I also agree that by consolidating municipalities, New Jersey could easily go the route of the New England states and abolish county government altogether.

Or keep the counties and ditch the municipalities.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 12, 2010, 12:24:19 PM
Or keep the counties and ditch the municipalities.

In my case, I'd much rather be governed at the municipal level than at the county level (though I reserve the right to change my opinion once I see what's been done to Mercer County).


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 12, 2010, 04:21:05 PM
Passaic County now...


()


17: Passaic
Contains: Passaic, Clifton
Population: 146,533

18: Paterson
Contains: Paterson, Prospect Park, Haledon, North Haledon, Hawthorne
Population: 189,391

19: Wayne
Contains: Wayne, Totowa, Little Falls, Woodland Park
Population: 85,803

20: Ringwood
Contains: Pompton Lakes, Ringwood, West Milford, Wanaque, Bloomingdale
Population: 67,322


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 12, 2010, 05:05:35 PM
Passaic County looks good.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 12, 2010, 06:47:03 PM
And now we get something controversial: Union County+...

()

21: Elizabeth
Contains: Elizabeth, Linden, Rahway, Roselle, Roselle Park
Population: 221,017

22: Union
Contains: Union, Kenilworth, Hillside
Population: 82,487

23: Westfield
Contains: Westfield, Clark, Cranford, Garwood
Population: 73,826

24: Plainfield
Contains: Plainfield, Scotch Plains, Fanwood, North Plainfield*, Green Brook*, Watchung*
Population: 110,105

25: Summit
Contains: Summit, Mountainside, Springfield, New Providence, Berkeley Heights
Population: 67,476


*These municipalities are in Somerset County. However, I felt that I could not reasonably create a municipality around Plainfield without including them, especially North Plainfield. They would either be transferred to Union County, or (as proposed elsewhere), the counties would be dissolved.

Also, Union and Elizabeth could realistically be merged on this design.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 12, 2010, 07:36:03 PM
I don't really like municipalities that cross county boundaries. It can get a bit messy when people from the same municipality receive different services at the county level. I can understand how North Plainfield should be joined with Plainfield, but I'm not so sure that Watchung and Green Brook are a good fit. I think they would fit in better with Bridgewater or Bernardsville. Also, if you're willing to split counties, why not go the whole hog and put South Plainfield (from Middlesex County) into the Plainfield municipality as well?

I also favor the Elizabeth and Union merger (especially Hillside), though if you were to go that route I would put Kenilworth in the Westfield municipality. It would be a better fit politically and demographically. In fact, I think Kenilworth should go into the Westfield municipality regardless of whether or not you merge Elizabeth and Union.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 16, 2010, 02:29:52 PM
Lots of heads will explode over #24. I'd have forced the commuter suburban pieces into other districts. It might make for an ugly or unusually small district, but I'd combine Plainfield with North Plainfield and then call it a day. Honestly, Plainfield sticks out like a sore thumb and has little to do with the towns you grouped it with. North Plainfield, at least, isn't 90% white like many of the other nearby towns.

Combining those two would give you a town of 67200+, which seems workable when given how small Summit is.  Heck, you could even give Summit some of the old Plainfield territory... it'd make more sense that way.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: TeePee4Prez on August 17, 2010, 11:10:24 PM
This should be interesting. Bergen and Camden counties can certainly afford to be streamlined.

What's the opposite of boroughitis?

I have some South Jersey ideas.  Leave Cherry Hill alone however.  It's big enough.  Example: 

Riverside+Delran=Delran. 
Palymra+Riverton+Cinnaminson+Maple Shade=Cinnaminson.
Pennsauken+Merchantville=Pennsauken
Haddonfield+Barrington+Haddon Heights+Audubon+Oaklyn+Lawnside= Haddonfield
Gibbsboro+Voorhees=Voorhees

I could go on.
 


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 18, 2010, 11:42:09 AM
This should be interesting. Bergen and Camden counties can certainly afford to be streamlined.

What's the opposite of boroughitis?

I have some South Jersey ideas.  Leave Cherry Hill alone however.  It's big enough.  Example:  

Riverside+Delran=Delran.  
Palymra+Riverton+Cinnaminson+Maple Shade=Cinnaminson.
Pennsauken+Merchantville=Pennsauken
Haddonfield+Barrington+Haddon Heights+Audubon+Oaklyn+Lawnside= Haddonfield
Gibbsboro+Voorhees=Voorhees

I could go on.
  

These seem coherent, but based on what's been revealed so far, I rather expect Cuivienen made a much more drastic revision. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pennsauken and Camden were paired together in his map, and Cherry Hill probably includes all of your version of Haddonfield, and Collingswood as well, unless of course he extended it south and paired it with Voorhees.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: memphis on August 18, 2010, 12:16:57 PM
You could easily consolidate more. My county of about a million people has a total of seven towns.  New Jersey is out of control.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Brittain33 on August 18, 2010, 12:21:59 PM
You could easily consolidate more. My county of about a million people has a total of seven towns.  New Jersey is out of control.

Funny, my reaction was how weird it was to see counties grouped into so few towns...


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 18, 2010, 12:32:49 PM
You could easily consolidate more. My county of about a million people has a total of seven towns.  New Jersey is out of control.

To be fair, most of the towns were created a century ago, so it isn't the fault of the current residents.

More counties coming this afternoon as well as a redesign of the Plainfield area.

Also, some advice. Piscataway is a weird and multi-polar town, with the southern half looking to New Brunswick and the northern half looking to Plainfield while the middle is pretty much empty. Would it be reasonable to split Piscataway in half?


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 18, 2010, 01:10:55 PM
Okay, here is a combination piece of Union, Middlesex and Somerset Counties. I did them together because to get good municipalities you really need a lot of crossing of county lines in the area.


()

24: Plainfield v2.0
Contains: Plainfield, North Plainfield, Scotch Plains, Fanwood, Dunellen, South Plainfield, Piscataway (part)
Population: 156,366

(Note: The rest of Union County is unchanged and not included here.)

26: Perth Amboy
Contains: Perth Amboy, Carteret, Woodbridge (part)
Population: 137,628

27: New Brunswick
Contains: New Brunswick, Highland Park, Piscataway (part), Franklin [aka Somerset], North Brunswick
Population: 194,603

28: South Amboy
Contains: South Amboy, Old Bridge, Sayreville
Population: 108,193

29: Edison
Contains: Edison, Metuchen, Woodbridge (part)
Population: 163,558

30: East Brunswick
Contains: East Brunswick, South River, Spotswood, Milltown, Helmetta
Population: 77,389

31: South Brunswick
Contains: South Brunswick, Plainsboro, Cranbury, Monroe, Jamesburg
Population: 95,001

43: Bernardsville
Contains: Bernardsville, Bedminster, Far Hills, Peapack and Gladstone, Bernards, Warren, Watchung, Green Brook
Population: 72,694

44: Somerville
Contains: Somerville, Raritan, Manville, Bridgewater (part)
Population: 70,051

45: Hillsborough/Montgomery (not sure what would be better)
Contains: Montgomery, Hillsborough, Branchburg, Rocky Hill, Millstone
Population: 71,759

55: Bound Brook
Contains: Bound Brook, South Bound Brook, Bridgewater (part), Middlesex, Piscataway (part)
Population: 46,037


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Brittain33 on August 18, 2010, 01:23:14 PM
Yay, my home county.

I have no advice about north Piscataway, only to concur with your decision to keep the southern part with New Brunswick, which you did.

Tiny bits but Helmetta is aligned with Monroe and Jamesburg by current population patterns, even if it was carved out of East Brunswick Twp. originally. East Brunswick's population is far from its historic center.

South Brunswick may be sparsely populated now, but it's a big growth area. I would dismantle South Brunswick by putting South Brunswick (growing fast) in with East Brunswick (mature) because they have similar demographics and transit links, keeping Cranbury with Monroe (mix of mature suburbs with some growth and lots of senior communities), and adding Plainsboro to whatever town Princeton is in. Princeton should be the center of a community crossing county lines if you are comfortable doing that; Plainsboro shares a high school with West Windsor in Mercer County and has Princeton Junction train station. However, it could reasonably stay with South Brunswick, as well.

Old Bridge could be split north/south with the southern part going with Monroe. It used to have two high schools because it had two centers of population. This would equalize population some.

But since it's your map and not mine, feel free to disregard most of it.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 18, 2010, 02:28:00 PM
I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Piscataway's population, so I can't give decent advice on whether or not it should be split. I would say, however, that if it were to remain whole, it should definitely be placed with New Brunswick. In this scenario, I would include Middlesex borough with Piscataway and put Bound Brook in with the Somerville-Bridgewater municipality.

I also agree that as long as you're crossing county boundaries, Plainsboro and West Windsor need to be in the same municipality. They share a school district and have similar demographics, including large Asian populations. I would consider putting them in the same municipality as Princeton, though this may cause issues when the Princeton municipality becomes too large geographically.

Arguably, everything that borders Princeton should be included in with Princeton. Princeton Airport is in Montgomery Township in Somerset County, much of West Windsor and northern Lawrence have a Princeton mailing address, and many businesses in West Windsor and Plainsboro associate themselves with Princeton rather than the municipality in which they really reside.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 18, 2010, 02:38:03 PM
Yay, my home county.

I have no advice about north Piscataway, only to concur with your decision to keep the southern part with New Brunswick, which you did.

Tiny bits but Helmetta is aligned with Monroe and Jamesburg by current population patterns, even if it was carved out of East Brunswick Twp. originally. East Brunswick's population is far from its historic center.

South Brunswick may be sparsely populated now, but it's a big growth area. I would dismantle South Brunswick by putting South Brunswick (growing fast) in with East Brunswick (mature) because they have similar demographics and transit links, keeping Cranbury with Monroe (mix of mature suburbs with some growth and lots of senior communities), and adding Plainsboro to whatever town Princeton is in. Princeton should be the center of a community crossing county lines if you are comfortable doing that; Plainsboro shares a high school with West Windsor in Mercer County and has Princeton Junction train station. However, it could reasonably stay with South Brunswick, as well.

Old Bridge could be split north/south with the southern part going with Monroe. It used to have two high schools because it had two centers of population. This would equalize population some.

But since it's your map and not mine, feel free to disregard most of it.


You know Central Jersey a lot better than I do; I'll rely on your recommendations.

I also dismantled the Bound Brook municipality and combined most of it with Somerville. (The Piscataway bits went to New Brunswick.) That leaves me with an extra municipality to create somewhere on the map, but I'll leave it at that to get some flexibility.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 20, 2010, 01:43:05 AM
The problem with most of Somerset County is that the bigger towns are totally different from one end to the other in many cases, Bridgewater and Franklin in particular.  Your map is pretty good, though the Bridgewater and Branchburg splits you made don't really make sense.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 20, 2010, 06:13:03 PM
Did I split Branchburg? I didn't mean to.

New update this evening coming.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 20, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
()

Morris County! And nothing controversial here. Morris is easy.

36: Lincoln Park
Contains: Lincoln Park, Pequannock, Riverdale, Butler, Kinnelon, Montville
Population: 64,940

(Lincoln Park got the name because it has the airport and the train station.)

37: Madison
Contains: Madison, Florham Park, Hamilton, East Hamilton, Chatham, Long Hill, Harding
Population: 75,786

38: Parsippany
Contains: Parsippany-Troy Hills, Boonton (Town), Mountain Lakes
Population: 63,401

(Parsippany-Troy Hills would be an acceptable alternative, but I've never heard anyone call it Troy Hills.)

39: Morristown
Contains: Morristown, Morris, Morris Plains
Population: 49,971

40: Rockaway
Contains: Rockaway (Town), Rockaway (Twp) (part), Denville, Boonton (Twp), Jefferson
Population: 61,560

41: Dover
Contains: Dover, Wharton, Victory Gardens, Rockaway Twp (part), Mine Hill, Randolph
Population: 62,229

42: Mount Olive
Contains: Mount Olive, Netcong, Roxbury, Washington, Mendham, Chester
Population: 92,325


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on August 20, 2010, 06:48:29 PM
Looks good, except I'm not sure you should put the Town of Boonton and Boonton Township in different municipalities. And what's with the Rockaway Township split?

And looking back at the Somerset County map, it does look like you've put two precincts from northern Branchburg in the Bernardsville municipality.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 20, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
Looks good, except I'm not sure you should put the Town of Boonton and Boonton Township in different municipalities. And what's with the Rockaway Township split?

And looking back at the Somerset County map, it does look like you've put two precincts from northern Branchburg in the Bernardsville municipality.

Boonton and Boonton Twp are totally different, they just happen to share a name. Boonton is developed and fairly old and has strong ties with Mountain Lakes and Parsippany. Boonton Twp is undeveloped wilderness with some light exurban development, and it looks more towards Denville and Rockaway (or Kinnelon at the northern end) than the Parsippany/Mountain Lakes/Boonton conurbation. There's a ridge between Boonton and Boonton Twp.

Rockaway Township I split because there is some development on the southern edge of Rockaway Twp that is continuous with Dover (no undeveloped land in between) that I thought should be with Dover rather than with the mostly exurban and undeveloped Rockaway.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 20, 2010, 07:44:35 PM
Nice job with Morris, that looks perfect.  The only possible change I'd make is putting Harding with Morristown.  The development over there is almost completely disconnected with your Madison and it flows along 287 towards Morristown nicely.

Yeah, I figured the Branchburg split was accidental, it's pretty insignificant.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Brittain33 on August 22, 2010, 07:40:13 AM
The development over there is almost completely disconnected with your Madison and it flows along 287 towards Morristown nicely.

LOL, my stepmother lives in Harding Twp. and in 15 years I think I've been to Morristown once with her, while Madison is their standard go-to place for dinner.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 22, 2010, 11:51:45 AM
The development over there is almost completely disconnected with your Madison and it flows along 287 towards Morristown nicely.
LOL, my stepmother lives in Harding Twp. and in 15 years I think I've been to Morristown once with her, while Madison is their standard go-to place for dinner.

Are you serious?  That's the opposite of my experience there.  Weird.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Cubby on August 22, 2010, 02:22:12 PM
While I agree that New Jersey has too many towns, I don't think the number should be reduced below 300. Most people want local control of their towns, and places of over 50,000 are too large. Getting rid of county government hasn't caused any problems that I know of in CT/MA/RI, but that decision led to an increase of local gov't units, not a decrease.

Neighboring states all have average town sizes larger than New Jersey's 14,866. But they aren't much larger.

Connecticut has 169 Towns and Cities: Average population in 2000: 20,151
Rhode Island has 39 Towns and Cities: Average population in 2000: 26,879
Massachusetts has 351 Towns and Cities: Average population in 2000: 18,088
New York has 994 Towns and Cities. Average population in 2000: 19,091 (without NYC: 11,045)

Pennsylvania at first glance seems to be 2,561 (cities/townships/boroughs) which equaled only 4,795 on average in 2000. I'm not very familiar with the PA method of organizing local units (1st class, 2nd class?) so that could be a misleading number. Of course PA and NY are much bigger in land area so they might not be the best comparisons to NJ.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on August 22, 2010, 08:48:04 PM
Personally, I think the New England states are desperately in need of municipal consolidation as well. Who can tell the difference between Medford and Malden, or between Goshen and Cornwall? Ridiculous redundant government, although New England did do a good job of eliminating county government. What people "want" doesn't, or shouldn't, matter in this regard. If people had their way, they would each form their own independent town.

Also, NY and PA contain a lot of empty space, so they're a little different. PA needs municipal consolidation in suburban Philly and Pittsburgh, though. NY has the weird Town system that I don't quite understand, but I imagine at that level NY has a much higher population per Town. (Hempstead would be one of the biggest cities in the country.)


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: skyeboat on September 16, 2010, 02:47:56 PM
Good thread. The bit about a ridge between the two Boontons is interesting.  It should be said that state law does not allow a town to be in two counties- which is delaying the merger of Corbin City -  so you may want to go back and fix some items.
     Apparently the author is North Jersey - how will he/she study the South before redrawing our part of the map? 


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Globus Cruciger on October 21, 2010, 10:15:47 AM
19: Wayne
Contains: Wayne, Totowa, Little Falls, Woodland Park
Population: 85,803

Haha, you're going to merge me with West Paterson Woodland Park? That's positively unnatural...


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Verily on October 21, 2010, 01:52:43 PM
19: Wayne
Contains: Wayne, Totowa, Little Falls, Woodland Park
Population: 85,803

Haha, you're going to merge me with West Paterson Woodland Park? That's positively unnatural...

Good to see that snobbery is alive and well. Pray tell, what is your problem with a wealthy, mostly Italian town other than its former nominal association with Paterson?

Anyway, I'd almost forgotten about this thread. I may try to do some new updates soonish.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on October 21, 2010, 02:22:31 PM
I definitely would like to see what you've done to South Jersey.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Globus Cruciger on October 21, 2010, 10:21:19 PM
Good to see that snobbery is alive and well. Pray tell, what is your problem with a wealthy, mostly Italian town other than its former nominal association with Paterson?

Dearie me, no snobbery intended; I've no quarrel at all with WP. Though I do think the old name was better.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: whatever on January 14, 2012, 12:53:23 AM
Hey, I realize this thread is over a year old, but it's awesome!

I was wondering if you could keep going and eventually make your way down to South Jersey?


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: minionofmidas on January 14, 2012, 06:58:34 AM
Three new replies from total newbies including two from people who appear to have registered exclusively for the purpose? Was this linked to by a local paper or something?


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: whatever on January 16, 2012, 09:20:36 PM
Three new replies from total newbies including two from people who appear to have registered exclusively for the purpose? Was this linked to by a local paper or something?


Don't know about that, but I first noticed this thread when it was active a year ago and had it bookmarked. I was going through the other day and rediscovered it, only to see that nothing new has been added, so I thought I'd register and put the plea out there to keep making more maps.


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 17, 2012, 12:00:11 AM
As a New Jerseyan, I wouldn't mind seeing this project resurrected...


Title: Re: New Jersey Municipal Consolidation
Post by: minionofmidas on January 17, 2012, 06:51:56 AM
Three new replies from total newbies including two from people who appear to have registered exclusively for the purpose? Was this linked to by a local paper or something?


Don't know about that, but I first noticed this thread when it was active a year ago and had it bookmarked. I was going through the other day and rediscovered it, only to see that nothing new has been added, so I thought I'd register and put the plea out there to keep making more maps.
Thanks, makes sense. :)