Six Conservative Guys




Six Conservative Guys - Proudly Serving the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Since 2003



We'll gladly reply to or publish your response. E-mail Six Conservative Guys

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, August 28, 2003
 
Riding on the Metro...

Alright, my take (at least for now): Nice thought - the breakup of the Metropolis into smaller sections (boroughs?), but not really practical, or even necessary really. I whole-heartedly agree with the competitive aspects of your proposal, indeed "markets" do "work." Sip is correct, however, these laudable goals can be achieved within the existing framework, and I believe in less time, for less money, and with less political and civic trauma. I work in a city which I believe to be of similar size to Rochester (New Haven), and the issues here are the same. Still, there are clearly "sections" already, most people call them neighborhoods. Remember neighborhoods? I lived in one when I was a kid, so did Mister S. The better neighborhoods in New Haven, have better schools, nicer homes, more well maintained (and better treated) public parks, libraries and other public services, and of course - higher property values. Certainly if you live in a less desirable neighborhood in New haven, you would prefer to live in a more desirable, "nicer' neighborhood. Is the answer to break up New Haven and incorporate each one of these neighborhoods?

Not one mayor but five or six? Not one municipal government but five or six? One city service contract replaced by five or six, multiplied how many times? And let's face it, the minute you do that, you can just right-off one or two of those newly incorporated municipalities. Sure, the weaker would be forced and motivated to improve to compete with the stronger, but with their coffers immediately reduced by the amount of tax paid by the better, more affluent sections, the process would be long and exceedingly difficult, and like any Darwinian process, the weakest would simply not survive. Is that a good thing? Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly won’t be pleasant.

Let's also keep in mind, that those sections that are less desirable from a residential standpoint, often are where many business are located (not shops and markets and other small businesses, but office complexes, research facilities, bank headquarters, and even some manufacturing units. The businesses are often located in the weaker sections, but the income taxes paid by the employees often go to the stronger sections (or to other communities altogether).

I agree with Sips suggestions. Education competition? Vouchers. There's no better way to improve the school system IMO (except maybe by breaking up the NEA and AFT). I also love the idea of localized referendums, but what are the boundaries for those with a say? That's a tough one.

The issue that encircles your original argument, and the responses you have so far received, has been a defacto strategy for getting the GOP back into the cities and urban centers. I don't think we need to break-up the "Metros" to do this - Mark is right, "hearts and minds." The message needs to change, or more succinctly, the message delivery needs to change. The long-suffering urban centers should be ripe for the political pickings. We certainly can't do any worse. The goal should be to first get people to stop blindly accepting the mind-numbing notion that the Democrats absolutely and necessarily represent their best interests, and that the GOP is trying to keep the wealthy fat at their expense. To do this, the standard, never-changing diatribe of urban Democrats needs to be challenged at street level. The concept of the entitlement being the end goal rather a means (of last resort) to self improvement must be shot down for the failure that it is. The point must be made clear time and time again, that if you're poor and have been living in a poor community for thirty or forty years (or more), and the same people have been representing your interests for that same thirty or forty years - and you're still poor, maybe there is a correlation there. Maybe it is time to listen to what the other guy has to say, how much worse could it be? Start there, improve each neighborhood at the neighborhood level, and the city as a whole becomes stronger and more vital - growth should then take care of itself.


Comments: Post a Comment