I dont understand why there cant be a compromise in any consolidation.

Id like to see more county/municipal partnership in IDAs so there is less competition between municipalities and more uniform marketing of our region or as it was called SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT AND ONE STOP SHOPPING FOR ANY COMPANY LOOKING TO EXPAND OR RELOCATE INTO OUR REGION.

Id like to see more county/municipal partnerships in building permits, zoning, etc to head off sprawl and encourage redevelopment. If sprawl moves into Genessee and Wyoming counties, then Erie County will follow Buffalo in the hollowing out of its tax base. (perhaps taxs on new roads and utility connections while credits for redevelopment)

Id much rather have one purchasing department, one controller, one auditor, one human resources department for the county and all municipalities. These resources can easily be shared.

Id much rather demand full local appointments (no appointments by the governor) of our regional planning organizations like the NFTA and the GBNRTC.

But im one of those people that doesnt believe in consolidations that would ultimately increase union membership for civil servants like teachers and police because thats going to ultimately result in unions becoming more powerful and mandatroy arbitration abusing the privildge of legislation against the taxpayer to pay for their demands.

Id much rather see school vouchers and school tax deductions to equalize the playing field between public, private, charter and parochial schools.

Id much rather see an end to municipal housing and have it replaced with rental vouchers.

IN THIS WAY WE CAN ENCOURAGE CONSOLIDATION WHILE KEEPING MORE LOCAL CONTROL BY THE TAXPAYER.

I don't think this essay was very well thought out. The only reason these dilapidated communites still exist is because they subside from tax dollars collected from neighborhoods that actually contribute taxes.

If these areas were to seccede they would provide little tax revenue to actually function would and end up having to still beg for change from higher govt. bodies.

And who says there would be that much greater political participation. Statistically, impoverished areas have very low voter turnout.

I read SIlverman's article and didn't understand it at all. What are the boundaries of this proposed New Buffalo? Which neigborhoods should break away and go it alone? As what kind of entity? A village? A city? A county?

Help me out here. What am I missing?

The merger proposals have always been a product of suburban paternalism. The idea that a County of less than one million people can't find ways to work together without the imposition of a formal government structure is ridiculous. There is no political will to share urban burdens of poverty and aging infrastructure. People in Buffalo need to learn to control government, not be defined by it. The government is still seen as the solution to problems or the potential instrument of reform and renewal. We need to learn not to pay the government any mind. We need to learn that the City and County governments are necessary nuisances.

Forget everything you might have hoped would come from this gear's election. Let's just build the City we want to live in , and push the government out of the way whenever it interferes with our efforts.

As far as the comment about whether poorest regions should secede in any merger, the answer is no.

I personally think that privatizations in areas like the schools and municipal housings would negate the risks of privatizations.

I think that in cases of police and fire, union contracts should be negotiated by precincts offering more contract incentives for higher crime areas and lower contract incentives for lower crime areas

And there should be an off budget infrastructure and redevelopment fund to which a map of the entire developed tax base (excluding non-developed green space). If the tax base is above average then a portion of county and municipal taxes goes to a redevelopment fun for areas under the average tax base.

In todays era of control boards, I think it important now...more than ever that investment in development and infrastructure not be restricted by union negotations, arbitration and city/county finances.

By doing so we do not handicap our economy, our businesses our job growth by municipal or county incompetence.

Gabe, just to start, I don't even think Silverman was proposing this as a practical solution--just as an idea to provoke thought and dialogue.

To your points though, yes poor folks live largely off of tax dollars, dollars they would still receive (except for city $$$ which really doesn't amount to much anyway) if they were to secede. And they would receive it in larger concentrations because it would be used just in those areas and not spread out to subsidize development and infrastructure in places that don't immediately impact the poor neighborhoods we're talking about.

And we only need look at this past election to see the extent to which poor folks (though Brown's support certainly was much broader) get out to vote when they feel that the person running represents them and will speak to their issues and who they feel has a real chance to win.

Again, I'm not advocating Silverman's plan, but it makes ya think--which is all of what I suspect he was aiming to accomplish.