It seems that some people in New Hartford are never satisfied. An expanded court facility was rejected by the voters, so now there is movement afoot to demolish an historical structure to create more parking for the current court facility. Is this to "get even?"
Town Fathers constantly want Bigger and Better . . . more, More, MORE . . . . BUT THE POPULATION IS STAGNANT, so why does Town Government need MORE? Town Officialdom has an Edifice Complex... whether for its own buildings or those of developers that will justify growing more government. Personal ambitions drive the Town . . . and the Town -- to which most people moved to get away from the city -- has become like a city with all the problems of a city. The needs of the RESIDENTS have been lost in all the maneuvering. So the people will be forced to pay more in Taxes and lost Quality of Life so a certain few can play their game.
Let's think about Court Facilities . . .
Town Court operates at night . . . meanwhile
City Court operates during the day . . .
One is 6 miles from the other . . . and the Utica City Court now has a new parking lot with plenty of spaces. One would think that with one court at night and the other during the day it would make sense for the two to share the same facilities . . .
But there is that pesky municipal Boundary separating New Hartford from Utica. So I guess that is what we are really paying for . . . . the line on a map -- and the egos hiding behind it.
3 comments:
I am against consolidation. Especially for the sake of saving money.
If anything, a lot of the woes (watershed woes, overdevelopment, etc) are the result of ambitious, power-hungry politicians and an apathetic, weary populace. And why do we have these politicians and such a populace? Part of the problem lies in that there is no sense of community and pride in one's efforts in a community. Also, there is that Godfather mentality that seems to pervade everything here.
Removing community boundaries is harmful. People are social creatures and need a sense of community. I have lived many other places in my life, and never have I lived in an area where there is no real "community" (except when I lived in New York City, where all the boroughs seem to go on forever-- but even there, there are small social communitites, like Soho and Chinatown). Here, the only visible thing separating the towns is some invisible geographic barrier and a Parking Law sign. All these Sauquoit Creek towns just blend into each other.
Is it so hard for Utica, New Hartford, Whitesboro, etc to work WITH each other on stormwater issues, development issues, etc? We have to change the entire region to suit their incompetence? And if anything, consolidation will only put MORE power into FEWER hands. That most certainly is a threat to our area.
Money talks, surely. But to eradicate towns and communities is ridiculous. The LAST thing I want to do is be a resident of "Greater Utica." And when it comes to courts and police, especially, I want LOCAL accountability and access.
"It is a known fact in human nature, that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object. Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large, the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union; unless the force of that principle should be destroyed by a much better administration of the latter.
"The variety of more minute interests, which will necessarily fall under the superintendence of the local administrations, and which will form so many rivulets of influence, running through every part of the society, cannot be particularized, without involving a detail too tedious and uninteresting to compensate for the instruction it might afford." Alexander Hamilton
That's only a portion of Federalist Paper #17, where Hamilton explains the benefits of local accountability superceding the tyranny possible through a larger, consolidated system (particularly criminal and civil justice):
"...The operations of the national [larger] government, on the other hand, falling less immediately under the observation of the mass of the citizens, the benefits derived from it will chiefly be perceived and attended to by speculative men. Relating to more general interests, they will be less apt to come home to the feelings of the people; and, in proportion, less likely to inspire an habitual sense of obligation, and an active sentiment of attachment."
I think he's right.
As usual, an interesting comment, Mrs. M. We will need to delve into this more in another post.
""It is a known fact in human nature, that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object.""
How true. And I think the key to deciding what SIZE a local government unit should be is to look at both of those things ... and how technological advances have changed our perceptions of both since the time when old boundaries were drawn.
More later.
Besides, NH doesn't want Cornhill. The blue hoovers (buses) pick up the Cornhill trash and deposit them in the Rt 5 corridor of NH, where our PD gets to deal with their larcenies and drug problems.
Hell, NH has enough native criminals, why expand the base?
Post a Comment