Resolved: NH County Government is Unconsitutional

Debatable Points In Your Argument (0.00 / 0)

Elwood, this is an interesting thesis and I also think whether or not counties still serve a purpose or are just now vestigial layers of government is something to discuss, but there are some debatable points in your argument.

There is no chamber of representatives from different counties making statewide decisions

*The House of Representatives is filled with members whose districts can only be part of one particular county.

While it might make more sense at times to have cross-county districts, they're all in the same county because State Reps are automatically part of the County Conventions per RSA 24.

*In addition to that, The New Hampshire Association Of Counties appoints people to serve on the County-State Finance Commission per RSA 28-B

Unlike Senate and Executive Council districts, our county boundaries do not change. Those lines have been in place for  centuries.

Just because they haven't changed doesn't mean they can't change. The number of counties and what they constitute is under RSA 22, and as we all know, any legislator can go in there with a sharpie, change a bit here and there, and if they can get it past both houses of the legislature, the governor, and the courts if anybody has a problem with it, it's law.

It is likely that some Rep or Senator is going to introduce a bill putting Pittsburgh in Cheshire County? No, probably not. But there's nothing stopping them from trying if they wanted to.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:32:35 AM CST

Those really don't affect my argument. (4.00 / 2)

Yes, every representative is from a county. But Hillsborough has a proportionately greater number of representatives in it. My point was, there is no body that can make law with equal votes per county.

And sure, the counties can have bodies to represent their interests in Concord, just the the car dealers can. But again, that body does not make laws.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:43:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, It Does Affect Your Argument (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, state reps only represent people within one county because they only have direct authority over the county institutions within their own county.

That's why Durham can't be redistricted with Newmarket or Peterborough can't be redistricted with Dublin in the House.

Also, in case you didn't notice, Hillsborough County also has more people than Coos County, and thus services more people.

If we're talking about proportions though, you're 100% wrong, Coos has more Reps proportionally than Hillsborough or Rockingham County.

Made a table below to show my work, the data is from the 2000 Census, RSA 662:5, and rounded off long division.

County	Population	State Reps	Ratio
Hillsborough	380,841	123	3,096 People per Rep
Rockingham	277,359	90	3,082 People per Rep
Coos	33,111	11	3,010 people per Rep

If there's a problem with Coos County having fewer legislators than Hillsborough County, there is no reason why we can't adopt a bicameral solution similar to what the Federal Government has adopted and base Senate Districts on a County basis with each county getting the same number of Senators.

And the last time I checked, we don't require elections to choose our car dealers, we just go on down to the dealership and pick them out individually.

State Legislators make laws. State bodies recognized under state law make regulations.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 13:18:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Andrew, you're missing my point (0.00 / 0)

The number of reps per capita is the same everywhere in the state - within a few percentage points.  (About 3 pct in your example.) Baker v Carr requires that.

And you are flat out wrong on having each county get the same number of Senators. That is flatly forbidden. That is exactly what Baker v Carr is all about. The federal government is allowed to do that in the US Senate. States cannot.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 13:35:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're Missing My Point, Elwood, And We're Both Going Around In Circles Here (0.00 / 0)

Supreme Court cases, even ones as seminal as Baker v Carr can be overturned. Legal precedent is important, but it's not written in stone. Heck, in Baker v. Carr, Justice Frankfurter cited Colegrove v. Green in opposition to Baker's claim that his legislative district was unfairly proportioned and should be changed per the 14th amendment.

However, what would need to be overturned wouldn't be Baker v. Carr as much as Reynolds v. Sims, but the dispositions of courts change over time. The unfairness fixed by Reynolds v. Sims created new unfairness in the North Country.

If you want fairness in counties or pseudo-county regions in terms of representation, that's what's necessary unless you want to rework the lines, which you seem to want to do, but by calling them something other than counties.

Time out, I think we're both misunderstanding each other here.

What is it that you want to do? Don't worry about Supreme Court precedent, that's a hurdle, but it isn't an immovable object.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 13:58:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What I want to do: (4.00 / 2)

Eliminate state taxation that is not proportional, as the New Hampshire Constitution requires.

As Jim Splaine mentioned in another diary, his own efforts at crafting a homestead exemption to make the property tax less regressive were blocked by the state Supreme Court because of those words in Article 5. Proposals for a graduated income tax also run into this barrier.

If that's the requirement, the state cannot fob its responsibilities off on subdivisions unless it also ensures that those subdivisions use their taxing authority in a manner that is proportional across the state.

Counties fail at this.

(There is far less wiggle room in the "one man one vote" rulings than you suggest, but that's really a bit off topic anyway.)

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 14:06:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's Fine With Me, I Just Saw What You Wrote Differently (0.00 / 0)

The first thing I thought when I saw you compare Coos versus Rockingham/Hillsborough wasn't that the boundaries should be changed, but...

A. Why doesn't Coos County cut two thirds or Rockingham/Hillsborough County add two thirds to their tax bills if equal taxation per capita is the issue per Article 5?

B. What do they get for that money?

C. What is "reasonable" in terms of county services? Does that mean equal taxation per capita or equal services rendered per capita or somewhere in between?

That stuff though didn't stick out as much as your second paragraph, so I decided to comment. Whether or not they work is immaterial to me, they may fully well not work, but I wanted to point out that they do exist because you said they didn't.

Also through your comments I don't get why apportionment by region would be any different than County. Whether it's a region or a county, it's still a polygon some guy drew on a map somewhere.*

As for the legal precedent, that'd be another interesting topic. I'm no lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that judges don't commune with a burning bush and come back with their decisions chisled into rocks. Precedent is important, but it's not perfect.

*-(Welcome to the GIS world, btw. You begin to see the world in polygons and rasters after awhile, I miss seeing things that way, I can't get Arcview to work on Apple, I need to get a PC.)  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 14:38:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Long as we're talking about redrawing counties... (0.00 / 0)

In addition to equal populations, counties should reflect communities.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:53:13 AM CST

I don't want to redraw them - (4.00 / 1)

They are extremely useful for studying historical trends. If you tell me NH Senate District 12 has gained 50% in average income that could be the result of redistricting. If you tell me Coos has, it's meaningful.

The Census tracks lots of demographic data by county precisely because the boundaries stay fixed.

I want to simply make them non-govermental - like "the Monadnock Region" or "the North Country" but with firm boundaries.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:58:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There is an argument to be made for regional government, though. (4.00 / 1)

Particularly because, in many cases, communities have outgrown their municipal boundaries over generations, but government does not reflect it.  Check any area at which a major street crosses the town line in or out of Manchester and you'll see this is an issue.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 12:04:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Border Towns (0.00 / 0)

Here's another flaw, all human made boundaries, even cultural rather than geopolitical ones, are arbitrary.

You used the Monadnock Region for an example. In order to put a set boundary on what is the Monadnock Region and what isn't, you'd either need to make arbitrary judgement calls or spend millions of dollars asking people in particular towns which "region" they think they live in.

Keene is certainly in the Monadnock Region, but would Milford be in the Monadnock Region or the Merrimack Valley? Is Plymouth in the Lakes Region (it's closer to Winnepesaukee than Berlin), the Upper Valley (shares Grafton County with Lebanon/Hanover) or the North Country (because it doesn't fit entirely into the other two even though it shares attributes with those two)

Maybe they should be their own regions since they're shatter belts. Maybe somebody might feel like gerrymandering them to get more resources for their own region.

Then again, why is that any different from a legislative district or a county or any other political subdivision?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 13:32:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK (4.00 / 1)

but for record-keeping purposes, arbitrary boundaries used historically are valuable to the extent the data in those records are valuable; you have meaningful points of comparison. The same is way less true for taxation and providing public services.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:06:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's True (0.00 / 0)

But pretty much any boundary is arbitrary for anything, even if less so.

If we're going to tax at all on a level between town and state, how does replacing counties with regions not eventually run into the same problems, even if the boundaries are perfect?

And if we would want to lessen the randomness of the boundaries, that'll require more effort, which more than likely will cost more money.

If we're going down Elwood's line of thought here, better to eliminate the counties altogether than replace them with something else. I'm neutral, but in Devil's Advocate overdrive with this idea of Elwood's right now.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:17:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What passes muster (0.00 / 0)

is taxing at the state level, proportionally, and then distributing it based on whatever needs exist in different areas.

Very much like state funding of education.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:29:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok (4.00 / 1)

In that case, why bother with "regions", why not go directly to the municipal level or nearly municipal level (i.e school districts)?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:47:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whatever makes sense for the function (4.00 / 2)

We already have dozens of other geographic governmental areas without taxing authority: watershed areas, cooperative fire districts.

Does it make sense for one county courthouse with official deed recording in Cheshire? Probably. In Grafton? Maybe not.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:51:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fantastic (4.00 / 1)

Ok, now I get what you're saying.

I thought that you meant the state would administer the districts, which doesn't seem necessary, they could just fold the nursing homes into HHS and the Sherriff's Department into the State Police and the record keeping and courts from Concord.

However, if a town wanted to start up a nursing home, but they wanted to work with some other towns, that's a good idea.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 08:53:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Elwood didn't suggest (4.00 / 2)

replacing counties with regions, Elwood suggested neutering them of their government roles (tax and policymaking), while maintaining the boundaries where they are for record-keeping purposes.

I said get rid of counties altogether, and Elwood is arguing the more artful position: to get rid of county government altogether (although, I don't presume to speak for him, but if I'm wrong, he'll correct me). This is a much better position.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:43:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps This Is Too Nuanced (0.00 / 0)

Counties came into existence as governmental subdivisions for things like courts and such.

Getting rid of county government and keeping counties would be like keeping the New England Patriots in business but firing all the football players: it loses all purpose. You might as well fire the front office staff too.

Counties would be vestigial without county governments.

And staying on that metaphor, changing from counties to regions is no different than if the New England Patriots changed their name to the New England (insert name here). The only tangible difference that could from from that switch would be if boundaries changed, which could be done by changing County boundaries.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:54:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure of the history (0.00 / 0)

Counties are at least as old as the state - we started with five.

BTW, they used to be the Boston Patriots.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:04:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They Still Played Football (0.00 / 0)

They used to play in Fenway Park.

When they changed the name though, they didn't suddenly start playing baseball. Cheshire County or the Monadnock Region. New England Patriots or Boston Patriots. Different geographical region, same sport. The change is superficial for the most part, same with scrapping counties but keeping its structure.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:13:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The history suggests (4.00 / 1)

earlier reform: Sullivan county is named for a hero of the revolution, Hillsborough county is named for a titled British cabinet member.

From the Hillsborough County website,

New Hampshire counties were first created by the Provincial Act of 1769.  The act divided the Province into five counties because "the holding of sessions of the superior court of judicature solely at Portsmouth or Exeter had rendered the administration of justice very expensive and difficult and in some cases almost impracticable, the people being generally not of sufficient ability to travel far."  

The original jurisdiction of the County included 13 towns that are now in Merrimack County. In 1823, those towns were detached and geographical boundaries of Hillsborough County were defined as they exist today.

http://www.hillsboroughcountyn...

From the Sullivan County website,

Sullivan County is located in the West Central area of New Hampshire and was named after Brigadier General John Sullivan (1740-1795), a Revolutionary War hero.  On July 5, 1827, Sullivan County came into being.  Prior to its founding, Sullivan County was part of Cheshire county.

So, what's interesting is we have many different dates: 1769, 1823, 1827. And, counties being cleaved from other counties. That suggests even the conservative fixed boundaries for record-keeping issue was not an insurmountable obstacle in the past and reform was done according to the needs of the time.  

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:20:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep, No Problem There (0.00 / 0)

They didn't suddenly stop calling them counties though. Sorry for harping on nomenclature, but that was the sticking point for me. I'm indifferent to moving around the borders or getting rid of them altogether.

"Regions"="Counties" if "Regions"="Anything having to do with any official boundaries that involve any level of government above municipalities, but below states"

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:39:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wait, (4.00 / 1)

why can't the New England Patriots fire the football players, keep the in-house accountants, and just become an accounting firm?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:23:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Getting To The Heart Of It (0.00 / 0)

They could, but why would they? What's the point?

There are plenty of accounting firms out there already, they'd need to establish a market niche that they don't need to establish since they already have a lucrative niche managing a football team.

That sounds like a great article in the Onion though.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:33:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The specific metaphor is a bad one (0.00 / 0)

but organizations change and evolve into quite different things all the time.

What's bad about the metaphor is that the Patriots' business is football, that's what they're good at; the business of counties is record-keeping and government. If we can reduce it to just a corporate metaphor: Elwood and I are saying the counties are good at record-keeping, but should merge the government division with the parent company's other government division.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 17:48:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Think We'll Have To Agree To Disagree Then (0.00 / 0)

I see the record-keeping division as the biggest and most identifiably "county" parts of the governmental division (deeds, courts, etc.)

Sorry for dragging this on so long.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 19:51:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But, then, (0.00 / 0)

we're agreeing: county functions like law enforcement (the sheriff, the prosecutor, the jails) or running the nursing home are primarily not record-keeping functions and maybe not suitable for county government, which also has the power to tax (and you know what they say about that), and an economic influence through the county treasurer's investment ability and an independent human resources system.

But even the record-keeping portion doesn't necessarily have to be done at the county seat. Say, hypothetically that we had a constitutional amendment and consolidated the several county registers of deeds into a New Hampshire Registry of Deeds in Concord: the register could still mark that a real estate transaction in Manchester occurred in the real estate area designated as Hillsborough County.

The county courts carry out a state-level function, in applying the statewide laws enacted by the state legislature. Historically, counties are an administrative convenience of the state government, now we're stuck with them as a matter of tradition, but they're kind of obsolete. It was a pain in 1769 to get from the far-flung corners of the state (which, until only a few years earlier, in 1764, included all of Vermont) to Exeter: now, it takes about 4 hours at most to get from any one corner of the state to another, and now data-sharing is relatively easy with modern conveniences like telephones, fax machines, and the Internet.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 20:45:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok, I'm Confused (0.00 / 0)

At first, I thought we did agree to a point (get rid of counties altogether or leave them alone is what I thought), but then the nuances set in (regions rather than counties, county conventions are/aren't governments, blah blah blah)

Sorry for the confusion, Alex.

I agree with you, but not that strongly, I don't think getting rid of counties is a top priority, but it doesn't seem like it could hurt.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 20:54:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think it's a top priority (4.00 / 1)

either. I think it's backward and maybe wrong and I think it should be examined. Like Jim Splaine said, "full abolishing of County Government it won't happen, at least not for a long time.  Too many politicians including a number of House members who have important roles in their Counties are very defensive about any change." It would pretty much require a constitutional amendment to abolish it. Elwood's probably right that it could be altered significantly through piecemeal litigation.

Maybe there will be a new "expedient to legislate" attitude as things take off under the Obama administration, but it would be no small change.  

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 21:12:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok Then, Doug (0.00 / 0)

What's your proposal?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 13:18:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, assuming redrawing town lines isn't an option, (0.00 / 0)

Drastically redraw the counties--maybe even throw them out and make new ones--to represent communities, and merge the taxation and distribution to a certain degree.  Nobody should be without a voice in their community because they live outside a centuries-old town line, and the residents of no city or town should bear an unfair burden with respect to the services provided to a community larger than the municipality.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:19:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let Me Clarify (0.00 / 0)

Doug, what's your proposal....to redraw the county lines? Where should the lines be?

Specifics, bud.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:39:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Specifics (4.00 / 2)

Give me a week while my domestic policy staff finishes going over census data and compiling a town-by-town layout of new counties and editing constitutional amendments to revise the specific functions, structure, and responsibility of state, county, and local government.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 18:48:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's some inspiration (4.00 / 1)

http://www.tjc.com/38states/

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 19:00:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm for redrawing counties. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not for redrawing states.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 19:53:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, I'm not either (4.00 / 2)

but you might be interested in seeing the criteria the guy--who is a geographer--used to determine how he would draw the lines.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 20:21:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great! (0.00 / 0)

Have that staff of yours look at this plan as a template while they're at it if we're going to move county borders that fit with localities

Coos County

Make it the "North Country" County, move it down to Chocorua east of 93 and Wentworth west of 93.

Sullivan County
The "Upper Valley" county, Current Sullivan County, and then the western sliver of Merrimack County (New London, Wilmot, etc.)

Cheshire County
Expand it eastwards to Wilton/Lyndeborough and go north until Bow, and then back to Hillsborough.

Hillsborough County
Make it Manchester and everything left in Hillsborough County west of the Merrimack River

Rockingham County
Hudson, Litchfield, Pelham and all of Rockingham County west of Epping and south of Deerfield

Strafford County
The "Seacoast County": Everything else in Rockingham County and everything in Strafford minute Moose Mountain towns.

Belknap County
The "Lakes Region County": Everything left in Carroll, Moose Mountain towns in Northern Strafford, Belknap and Tilton area.

Merrimack County
Concord area west to Hopkinton and east to Nottingham.

There, one rough draft ready to go. It's not perfect, but at least it's something to agree or disagree on at least.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 19:45:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're thinking small. (0.00 / 0)

I want to wipe it out and start over.  Ten might not be the right number.  But two major principles apply: represent communities, and have roughly equal populations.

Representing communities would be difficult, and might require splitting several towns--such as Hooksett--in two.  One thing is certain in my mind, though: the extension of Hooksett Road from the town line up past the Walmart should be within the same county as Manchester, whereas Peterborough probably should not.  Center the counties on cities.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 19:58:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's Super, See Ya In A Week (0.00 / 0)

Let us know what you come up with. Good luck with thinking the big thoughts.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 21:00:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good Luck with Your Argument (4.00 / 3)

If challenging the county system in the Court, accomplishes a rethinking of our county system of government then I am all for it.

The county system of government reminds me of the argument that they use for school districts:  The cry of "preserve local control" by having these local entities deal with the problems with which the state should be dealing. Everyone knows that the state holds all the cards, except for the financial ones which are heaped upon the county and school districts where the only mechanism for raising money is through property taxes.

The two biggest areas of abuse in county government deal with Medicaid and the county prosecutors and county houses of corrections.  For the last twenty-five years, the state has slowly been transferring more of the fiscal responsibility for caring for our elderly onto county government. As our population goes older, the counties have to shoulder more and more of the cost. That means higher property taxes for our county taxpayers because the biggest source of funding for counties is the taxpayer.

The other big area is when county taxpayers pay for housing the inmates that are convicted under state law by state law enforcers.  For example, the state probation officers find someone in violation of their parole, the county attorney has to prosecute, and the county jail has to house the inmate for the violation, all financed on the back of county taxpayers.

And you are exactly right about the per capta tax burden dramatically differing among the counties. No wonder there is resistance in the more urban parts of the state about doing anything about the so-called "New Hampshire Advantage."

The only way we are going to get a change in our state tax system is for the courts to impose it or have a financial crisis of such magnitude something will have to be done. Repealing our county form of government might help nudge that "change" along.

P.S. Sorry for the length of this posting

---

by: gradysdad @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 13:35:37 PM CST

Mr. Twomey , your response ? n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:29:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In high school, (4.00 / 2)

I was involved with the student senate, and while I was there the school board elected to permit a non-voting student representative to sit with them and I was involved in trying to develop a strong relationship between the senate and the student representative. The local school board is fairly accessible and responsive to local needs. I'm very sympathetic to local control arguments because of this context, but they don't really work with county government.

Counties aren't the same size geographically or in terms of population, so the level of accessibility varies quite a bit (it's one thing to drive 15 minutes down the street to a school board meeting, another to drive an hour from Pittsburg to the Coos county seat in Lancaster) and so does responsiveness to public needs: it's easier to ignore Joe Q. Public at a county-level public meeting in a more populous county than it is in less populous county. So, policy change is easier in a less populous county because you have a weightier vote and there are, presumably, fewer veto players.

I understand that you didn't suggest the argument in favor of counties to be a matter of local control, but rather said it reminded you of the argument in favor of local school districts. But, being someone sympathetic to local control arguments, and initially skeptical of the calls to eliminate county government for this reason, I wanted to explain how I came to the conclusion that the local control argument is irrelevant to county government in the first place, and how it pales in comparison to the fundamental unfairness of the current system.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 16:36:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what about other local government divisions? (4.00 / 3)

My train of thought went something like this:  

• If counties are disproportionately taxing people, towns must be too.
  
• But wait, towns aren't providing a service mandated by the state, so towns are ok.
  
• Except that (lightbulb) school districts do provide such a service.  
  

And while I don't know that elwood's specific issue is part of the legal wrangling that has gone on over schools for decades, it is kind of an interesting footnote, at the very least.

So if you want to disembowel counties, do it piecemeal: pick another specific service they provide, and sue over it.

All that said, I have to tell you, I came from a place where counties were the local government, and I think they are the right scale.  If it was up to me, I'd discontinue town government and move it all to the county level.  Get a system of libraries, rather than dinky little libraries per town.  A system of firefighting, instead of redundant purchases of hook-and-ladder trucks.  And so on.

---

by: kite @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 20:26:04 PM CST

That's an interesting suggestion (0.00 / 0)

it would solve Doug Lindner's problem with the agglomeration between Manchester and its neighboring towns.

I think it would be awful, though, because it would make government further removed from the people.

I could imagine the Nashua delegates to a Hillsborough County government squabbling over resources with the Manchester delegates while both ignore the needs of small towns without a lot of votes like Weare or Temple in a way that doesn't occur at the state-level, where there's more of a balance between rural and urban representatives in the General Court.

Reflecting on winter services, especially in this winter of snow and ice, I would not think some guy on a back road somewhere would be in a better position if he had to direct all his requests to the county seat instead of a neighbor alderman or selectman or whatever. The basics of local government here-getting the trash picked up and the potholes filled-would maybe not be as much a priority in a townless county system.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 21:00:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Concur In Regards To Hillsborough (0.00 / 0)

It's definitely not in the best interest for Hillsborough towns to see an expansion of county governmental authority.

We'd become a secondary priority, similiar to PSNH's plan during the black out last month.

Other counties don't have cities that are as big in comparison though, so I can't speak if that might be ok elsewhere. Nashua and Manchester are in a league of their own in New Hampshire.

P.S -- Speaking of complicating layers of government and utilities, Merrimack's a case in itself. We have three layers of government in town for some reason: The town, the school district, and the village district, but the village district seems like it could be a department of the town government without much fuss. The other two governments have SB 2 town meetings, but the village has a traditional town meeting and last year there were around a dozen people there, including the commissioners.

 

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 21:58:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And that goes back to the reason NH county government is infeasible. (4.00 / 1)

The counties don't make sense.

Manchester and Nashua should not be in the same county.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:46:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're Going Into Pundit Mode Again Doug (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Alex as well, but at least be forthright as to WHY you think Nashua and Manchester shouldn't be in the same county.

If your sentiment is the same as Alex'es, be gracious and give him credit.

You've been doing this for months.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 08:49:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it works elsewhere (4.00 / 1)

I didn't just make this up, it's a real live functioning system in a lot of places.  You might want to see how it works elsewhere before deciding it just wouldn't work in New Hampshire.

This small-town thing is very peculiar.  In a county-centric model, cities of any size often retain control of a variety of services, because they have enough people to warrant it.  And counties amalgamate dispersed populations into enough people to provide the same functions at a reasonable scale.  

Is it picturesque and idyllic?  No.  Does it have problems I am unaware of?  I'm sure it does.  I can't say I remember the details from any place I used to live, but getting potholes filled was never a problem.  Or no more of a problem than here.  And the funding consolidation, and efficiencies of scale, are in my opinion better suited for most of what towns try to provide here: libraries; police; fire; schools; trash pickup (or the absence thereof); social services.

I don't live in Hillsborough, but surely it's not a unique place in the overall scheme of things.  Compare, for example, to Ann Arundel COunty, Maryland.  Or even Baltimore County.  (And much smaller than Fairfax County Virginia.)

---

by: kite @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:54:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In the northeast (0.00 / 0)

county government just isn't a big deal and the easier and more sensical change would be eliminating county government instead of scaling it up. This still leaves the the huge tax disparity problem, though. And, my contention is not that it can't be done, it's just that the citizen is not going to be as well represented.

My impression of it in Maryland is that it's kind of screwy. I mean, Bethesda is an unincorporated place under the control of Montgomery County, but elsewhere in Montgomery County there are incorporated places like Rockville?

Size might be a factor. Both Bethesda and Rockville are bigger than Concord, NH. Just looking it up to make sure the above was correct, MoCo has got about 1m people. New Hampshire has 1.2m or 1.3m. So it would be comparable to totally eliminate county government and have a New Hampshire that enjoys the organizational and cost-sharing benefits which, I guess, you're suggesting county government offers.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 23:11:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a friend (4.00 / 1)

that grew up in Faifax Va, down there it is all county based. He seems to think it is a good way to go, it has trade offs but when I seen the differences in services between Keene High and Monadnock, not even 5 miles apart from one another as the crow flies, I wonder if they are on to something.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 22:41:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You Can Answer A Question For Me, Mike (0.00 / 0)

I've heard in Virginia that all cities are independent of counties, and I was curious if your friend knew anybody in the cities, or if Fairfax is a city, and how that compares to the "full" counties.

I have a friend from Iowa who says they do it by the county level there too, but some counties in Iowa are the size of small NH towns, their organization of counties is much easier due to the township range system.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 08:58:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

From 'Friend' (0.00 / 0)

There is a Fairfax City that sits in Fairfax County. I lived in Fairfax, VA (as opposed to Fairfax City, VA) so it never affected me. Here is the information re: how the city interacts with the county public schools. http://www.fairfaxva.gov/schoo...

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:14:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There's the rub - (0.00 / 0)

I claim that the towns' authority to tax comes from the state, and therefore the tax burden across towns must be proportional.

You can make the case that the expenses ARE largely proportional, despite the different sizes and populations of towns. The cost of plowing roads will be proportional to the miles of roads in a town rather than the population of the town, but that might fit the Constitution's ambiguous requirement.

By this logic, EVERY town expense is a state function. There is no need to examine the Constitution to find a "cherish" mandate. Only the state has the power to put people in jail for not paying their taxes, therefore every government function relying on taxes must follow the rules set out for the state.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 05:15:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

if there weren't downshifting.... (4.00 / 1)

... whether to have county government would practically be moot.

Each delegation constitutes a number of representatives which are based on the overall apportionment in the state. In the last redistricting, the number was approximately 3055 persons per representative district. Sullivan county lost a member, yet each district within the county still was proportional within acceptable standards of deviation. The districts were, therefore, constitutionally correct. It could be argued that one man one vote is satisfied.

The problem is the General Court's inability to come to terms with real revenue reform, paying for what it mandates, and its amazing ability rationalize the status quo by downshifting costs. You are correct in assuming that like towns, internal costs in county boundaries are proportional and local government otherwise could be reasonably efficient. Historically, counties did the lion's share of the state's daily business: prosecuting, caring for the elderly, holding court, & cetera. As communications got better and legislators were able to drive practically daily - in the old days the rails gave passes or preferential rates, I am told - to effect the state's business, county government became moot.

Perhaps the two more important reasons that counties exist is to insure that there is accessible care for the poor and elderly and dealing more directly with social and welfare issues. Were county boundaries to be redrawn, they would have to be done based on population, ignoring such demographics as economy, industry or income. Were this to occur, regions areas such as Sullivan and Coos would still have greater numbers of seniors and accordingly a heavier burden. The General Court would still downshift, and there would still be economic inequity. Counties with the exception that they may be an unnecessary level of government are not the problem. They are a significant employer and do provide a basic function as a safety net, like it or not.  

---

by: Jay Phinizy @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 08:57:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess I'm not being clear. (4.00 / 1)

1. I do not want to eliminate the government functions that counties currently provide. I want those functions provided, but paid for equitably.
2. I do not claim that the representation of towns within a county is disproportionate.

The people of Sullivan County and the people of Rockingham County each pay for one sheriff. That is way out of whack. The numbers cited above - about 3x per capita cost for county functions in sparse versus dense counties - is the resulting problem.

The "reason counties exist" is, IMO, mired in the history of the 18th and early 19th centuries. We have then re-purposed the counties as the decades passed.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 09:07:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Ok, A Lack Of Clarity Is Expanding The Dialogue (0.00 / 0)

What I suppose i'm not getting from your train of thought, Elwood, is why not go the full nine yards if counties don't work?

The functions that are being provided by counties could just as easily be provided by the state or by groups of muncipalities working of their own accord it seems, so in that case, why bother with even having any counties? Political expediency?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 09:42:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Demographic data (4.00 / 1)

For example: the US Census keeps track of the number of people who move from one county in the US to another on a five-year basis. They actually publish the number - not estimate - of people who moved from Dade County Florida to Carroll County NH.

And by keeping the geographic boundaries intact we can get meaningful data on changes over the decades.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 09:50:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, Elwood (0.00 / 0)

Again, wouldn't it be more helpful if we could get census data from other counties to specific municipalities?

We think in municipalities here in comparison to the rest of the country outside of New England, take election returns for example.

Sorry, Elwood. I think i'm deadset for now where Alex is regarding the county issue: if we're going to look to reforms regarding counties, let's get rid of them altogether, but let's go slow.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 18:36:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It would be more helpful as data (4.00 / 1)

if we could get it by individual household, or zip code.

That ain't gonna happen.

If you want to change the subject from "What should New Hampshire do?" to "What should the King of America Do?" we could explore it further.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 18:49:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the towns suffer from the same inconsistencies.. (4.00 / 2)

Would you have Rockingham County have three sheriffs? No. The same argument could be laid at the feet of the towns, too. Charlestown and Concord both have chiefs of police. There are inherently certain inefficiencies in government that cannot be overcome.

Now, I asked Doug Scammon one time how he would streamline county government. He's an old hand. His first response was to eliminate the sheriffs' departments and assign those responsibilities accordingly to the state police or corrections.... like court security or prisoner transfer.

County government could be streamlined, modernised, considerably, as I have suggested before by making Concord responsible for much of the real costs it mandates, thereby, restoring some equity. There will be no completely equitable distribution. It's the nature of the demographics. Sullivan and Coos have higher proportions of seniors...some of the southeastern counties have higher crime rates. It balances to a degree....

But, you are quite right, the county system is anachronistic.  

---

by: Jay Phinizy @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 12:01:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, yes. (4.00 / 1)

I would indeed want an area with far more people to have more sheriffs. The work of the sheriff's department tends to grow at least linearly with the population.

Whether we need sheriffs at all, in addition to local and state law enforcement is a different question. But if we do, their footprints of authority should be based on 21st century demographics.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 14:49:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]