Merger may not be the answer in cutting local government costs

[MoobyCow]

NJ is not overhiring (compared to other states). We may be overpaying, though that is a trickier calc because of cost of living.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/what-states-have-the-most-government-workers-1654/

http://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/bobweeks#!/vizhome/StateEmployment2013-02/GovernmentEmployeesandSpending

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
So now you're saying that both large and small towns are overhiring and overpaying. I do not understand how consolidation or county rule would possibly solve that problem.

His theory is - if you consolidate you have an excuse to cut staff without replacing them and that they will never be replaced.

Or that somehow a more consolidated government would be immune to the pressures that lead to having so many cops in the first place.

But youve been on this board to know that NIRHs main beef with society is that cops have it too good and are just around to harrass people like him.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
So now you're saying that both large and small towns are overhiring and overpaying. I do not understand how consolidation or county rule would possibly solve that problem.

His theory is - if you consolidate you have an excuse to cut staff without replacing them and that they will never be replaced.

Or that somehow a more consolidated government would be immune to the pressures that lead to having so many cops in the first place.

But youve been on this board to know that NIRHs main beef with society is that cops have it too good and are just around to harrass people like him.

I'm guessing he's just upset that he once got arrested for urinating on someone's lawn in Pt Pleasant Beach.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by derleider:His theory is - if you consolidate you have an excuse to cut staff without replacing them and that they will never be replaced.

Or that somehow a more consolidated government would be immune to the pressures that lead to having so many cops in the first place.

If either of those theories were right, wouldn't per capita costs be lower in larger towns that in smaller one? The fact that they're not suggests that the small town's cops are in fact needed, right?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Ha I've never been arrested and never been cited for public urination. I'll take the bro but I'm not privileged. And by the way- it's a shocker but the Republican mayor of Point Pleasant Beach was one of the main yellers at the municipality league meeting because the state won't let him charge tourists more taxes. More good business down there as usual...the whole problem in NJ is just too few taxes, too little revenue for these towns...In terms of cops though, National Motorists' Association ranks NJ #1 worst state in terms of speed traps. Are we the safest, or close to it, in terms of fatalities or accidents...or is that we just had to scrap the red light program because it was found to essentially be stealing by entrapping the innocent?

The first example of this actually happening in recent history in Princeton and for these purposes it just happened. So what I am saying has not been disproven.

I think the larger towns are less of a problem because they actually do need more people and inevitably the more people you have to hire the more problems you will likely get as result. The problem in NJ is that we seem to have more problems and they seem to be highest concentrated in the smallest population towns.

Also the pay doesn't take into account the paid sick and vacation days upon retirement which is one of the biggest problems.

I can also give plenty of non police examples of corruption. They are the easiest targets because they are the most abusive, but just today a lawsuit was filed against a Gloucester County school district where teachers were harassing a student because they didn't like her father's moves on the school board. It's a NJ.com article so I won't link but the behavior was awful and I doubt there will be punishment, because again the district can just settle the case and pass on the cost to the taxpayers and their insurers. The difference with teachers versus other employees, although this is decreasingly a problem, is a shortage of teachers. I sat in overcrowded classrooms as a kid and there was nothing pleasant about it.

Simple logic is the less employees the less the chance of this happening. One less person to bribe, pay off, put out a no-bid contract, harrass, wrongfully arrest, make an assault, and then hundreds of thousands in salary and benefits that does not have to get paid.

We're #1

 

[NotInRHouse]

Another NJ.Com article this week (was inspired with the Hillel thread) is that cops in Lakewood are now turning on lights and otherwise acting as "shabbos goyim" for the Hasidic community, known for voting as one power bloc, helping them around the house on Saturdays because they can't do work based on the Torah. Personally I find it satisfying that in Lakewood, ravaged by gang violence, and Ocean County, the base of NJ heroin epidemic, that the cops focus on important problems like turning on stoves. It would be such a shame if say, Ocean County had one police department that would prevent one group from exercising overdue influence, violating the Constitution, and straining resources, no?

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Another NJ.Com article this week (was inspired with the Hillel thread) is that cops in Lakewood are now turning on lights and otherwise acting as "shabbos goyim" for the Hasidic community, known for voting as one power bloc, helping them around the house on Saturdays because they can't do work based on the Torah. Personally I find it satisfying that in Lakewood, ravaged by gang violence, and Ocean County, the base of NJ heroin epidemic, that the cops focus on important problems like turning on stoves. It would be such a shame if say, Ocean County had one police department that would prevent one group from exercising overdue influence, violating the Constitution, and straining resources, no?

So now he not only anti-cop he is an anti-Semite too.

(JOKING!)

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:


Simple logic is the less employees the less the chance of this happening. One less person to bribe, pay off, put out a no-bid contract, harrass, wrongfully arrest, make an assault, and then hundreds of thousands in salary and benefits that does not have to get paid.

But why would there be fewer employees if per capita costs are the same in both large and small communities? The larger community would simply have to hire more employees to maintain the same level of service. If this were not true, then per capita costs would be lower in larger communities, and that's simply not the case.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Because the towns are currently bloated and those levels don't have to be maintained.

Let's say Town A has 15 cops and Town B has 30.

If A merges into B- well you can't fire the 15 from A off the bat unfortunately it's illegal- but what you can do is say, Town AB will have a set goal of having 25 officers, and hire based on that goal.

I do not think the services would decline- but that is what is going to tested in a place like Princeton that recently merged.

 

[retired711]

I don't understand why bloated Town A and bloated Town B aren't going to simply become bloated Town AB. What's the incentive to cut back?

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I don't understand why bloated Town A and bloated Town B aren't going to simply become bloated Town AB. What's the incentive to cut back?

There is none. Hes assuming that someone, when the towns merger - the people in charge suddenly go from loving bloat to hating bloat.

But reality is - they could always cut bloat. They might not be able to fire the guys - but they can freeze hiring and then eventually just not even have those positions anymore. People retire. They move. They get promoted or get jobs in other fields.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I don't understand why bloated Town A and bloated Town B aren't going to simply become bloated Town AB. What's the incentive to cut back?

There is none. Hes assuming that someone, when the towns merger - the people in charge suddenly go from loving bloat to hating bloat.

But reality is - they could always cut bloat. They might not be able to fire the guys - but they can freeze hiring and then eventually just not even have those positions anymore. People retire. They move. They get promoted or get jobs in other fields.

Sure they could cut bloat if any exists. But nothing about merger makes that more likely than it is now so long as the per capita costs of serving large and small towns is the same.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Because the mergers if conditioned on state law as proposed, would include a revocation of state aid. If the towns are not going to cut bloat, they will appear pretty non-participatory.

 

[retired711]

I think there's little chance that will pass; municipalities are powerful in the legislature, as they are most places.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Sweeney and Christie are for it. If either have any higher aspirations, they ought to beef up their, in my opinion, resumes that are thin outside of corruption and grandstanding.

 

[retired711]

Nevertheless, that legislation has been around a long time without gaining much traction.

 

[PurpleR]

From reading this thread I would assume that many of the people that would like consolidation are much happier with their State and County services (large organizations) than they are with their municipal services (smaller organizations). Is that true?

Or is the problem that you just want your municipal services provided at a cheaper rate?

When studies come out on various tax issues in almost every instance the States that are on the high end are also on the high end of Cost of Living. Does anyone have a listing of those states that are than adjusted for this factor? For instance a police officer in North Jersey is going to require a much higher salary to live in his community or a nearby community than a police officer in say... Arkansas where the cost of living is appreciably lower. Anyone have info on this?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Camden- maybe but that could just be the general lethargy of the state government.

IMO, the salaries should be correlated to difficulty. Wealthy towns with limited crime should pay the least. Camden and Newark should pay the most. The current situation is reversed. I would have no issues giving a six figure salary to someone taking on gangs. I have that issue when the gang is a bunch of 16 year old trust fund babies playing loud music or drinking wine coolers.

Where I live (Hudson) I would like to see the total merger of the county into one governmental entity. We're basically the sixth borough- should be run the same way.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Camden- maybe but that could just be the general lethargy of the state government.

IMO, the salaries should be correlated to difficulty. Wealthy towns with limited crime should pay the least. Camden and Newark should pay the most. The current situation is reversed. I would have no issues giving a six figure salary to someone taking on gangs. I have that issue when the gang is a bunch of 16 year old trust fund babies playing loud music or drinking wine coolers.

Where I live (Hudson) I would like to see the total merger of the county into one governmental entity. We're basically the sixth borough- should be run the same way.

So basically you are saying - there should be a lower property tax, but a higher income tax to transfer that wealth to Newark and Camden cops? Im sure they would be fine with that. Still not sure what that has to do with consolidation. The more likely effect in that case would be - everyone in a county would make the high rate.

 

[NotInRHouse]

No- I was addressing the overall point about compensation based on location by Purple.

I'm not for increasing any taxes. I would make up the gain in urban salary with cuts to suburban and rural ones.

I would also pay proven teachers to come to bad districts.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
No- I was addressing the overall point about compensation based on location by Purple.

I'm not for increasing any taxes. I would make up the gain in urban salary with cuts to suburban and rural ones.

I would also pay proven teachers to come to bad districts.

There are alot more cops in Camden and Newark than elsewhere. It wouldn't work out like you think it would.And if you consolidated to the county level, then you would have COUNTY cops - so all of Camden County and Essex County and Mercer County are getting Newark/Trenton/Camden rates.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
No- I was addressing the overall point about compensation based on location by Purple.

I'm not for increasing any taxes. I would make up the gain in urban salary with cuts to suburban and rural ones.

* I would also pay proven teachers to come to bad districts.

* There are alot more cops in Camden and Newark than elsewhere. It wouldn't work out like you think it would.And if you consolidated to the county level, then you would have COUNTY cops - so all of Camden County and Essex County and Mercer County are getting Newark/Trenton/Camden rates.

And what about residency for both?

What say you on that, NIRH?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Remember I'm saying consolidate for towns under 50k. This would leave plenty of towns including the bigger cities intact.

What I'm saying is- get the best and brightest to come to Newark and Camden by paying. For example, cap salaries in the burbs at say 75k, but cap salaries in Newark and Camden at 100 or 125k. I'm talking about talent. And I would overall be amenable to shrinking the suburban forces and moving positions to the cities. Recall that the shooters at Short Hills, the shooting in West Orange, the Millburn beating of the mother in her living room...all the accused are from Newark, Irvington, etc...so it starts there.

I have mixed feelings on residency. I would waive it for talented, proven officers in the big cities.

I also think it turns impractical- for example NYC employees can live in the reaches of Staten Island or Queens but not Hoboken. That's provincial and I don't agree.

 

[PurpleR]

NotInOurHouse so the state is going to come in and essentially take from the towns their talented people and move them to the cities. Wow, I don't see anyone that would complain about that. Where do you think most of the state aid goes right now? I am biased but I feel as though local governements are more accountable and responsive to their populace than the other levels of governements . I would hate to see that change.

 

[NotInRHouse]

It's merely a recognition the status quo doesn't work.

Also NJ.Com article today, another driving magazine has named NJ the worst state for speed traps. Cops in the burbs have too much time, too highly paid, and in dangerous cities, it's the reverse.

 

[Jonny S]

I think this study was looking at the wrong thing. Look at the average property taxes in Metuchen vs. Edison - much lower in the latter, because they have all a lot more property tax paying business ratables. Metuchen would be much better if those were subsidizing its taxes. I don't think that's really controversial, and I think the arguments in that case from the Metuchen side against consolidation don't make any sense.

Anecdotally I think there is a LOT of bloat and plenty of redundant jobs could be cut on both sides as well, but that's harder to prove, and certainly would take time if you had to do everything through attrition. The first step really should be for these obvious cases - like Scotch Plains and Fanwood, before you start talking crazy like forcing Elizabeth and Plainfield to have authority over them.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Jonny S:
I think this study was looking at the wrong thing. Look at the average property taxes in Metuchen vs. Edison - much lower in the latter, because they have all a lot more property tax paying business ratables. Metuchen would be much better if those were subsidizing its taxes. I don't think that's really controversial, and I think the arguments in that case from the Metuchen side against consolidation don't make any sense.

Anecdotally I think there is a LOT of bloat and plenty of redundant jobs could be cut on both sides as well, but that's harder to prove, and certainly would take time if you had to do everything through attrition. The first step really should be for these obvious cases - like Scotch Plains and Fanwood, before you start talking crazy like forcing Elizabeth and Plainfield to have authority over them.

Yes - and Edison would be worse because it would dilute the business share with mostly residential Metuchen.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Remember I'm saying consolidate for towns under 50k. This would leave plenty of towns including the bigger cities intact.

What I'm saying is- get the best and brightest to come to Newark and Camden by paying. For example, cap salaries in the burbs at say 75k, but cap salaries in Newark and Camden at 100 or 125k. I'm talking about talent. And I would overall be amenable to shrinking the suburban forces and moving positions to the cities. Recall that the shooters at Short Hills, the shooting in West Orange, the Millburn beating of the mother in her living room...all the accused are from Newark, Irvington, etc...so it starts there.

I have mixed feelings on residency. I would waive it for talented, proven officers in the big cities.

I also think it turns impractical- for example NYC employees can live in the reaches of Staten Island or Queens but not Hoboken. That's provincial and I don't agree.

The geography is greater (5 boros + any county that touches them + any county that touches those)than that...In theory somebody could be assigned to a precinct, firehouse, jail, sanitation garage say in Tottenville and allowed to live in Montauk but not over the Hudson.

And I agree.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Yeah- I have a friend that works for the city and I always joke with him that I live closer to 250 Broadway than he does. IMO, having worked the for the city, it's a great way to lose talent. I'm not giving my place and the conveniences, and lower taxes, of living in NJ.

Also, I agree with what Jonny says. Maybe there should be a "donut" law, you can't be one town surrounded entirely by another. I don't think places like Elizabeth or Plainfield are the culprits with that kind of stuff anyway. I used to work in Plainfield, one of the worst places to live in NJ IMO for reasons not related to its governance.

 

[retired711]

I think NIRH is caught between two laudable objectives: improving urban schools and cutting property taxes. I can see the desirability of using higher salaries to attract teachers to poor districts (although I am a little bit dubious that superior teaching is the answer in low-income areas where there are so many challenges facing students and parents). But I do not think it is feasible to cut teacher salaries in suburban areas where parents are willing to tax themselves for good schools. Cherry Hill's excellent schools do not stem simply from its excellent tax base (the town has been aggressive in attracting residence-comparible growth), but also from the fact that the citizens are willing to elect school board members who set high tax rates. I can't see any way to get Cherry Hill to give that up.

 

[Jonny S]

No - the point about Elizabeth and Plainfield was that there shouldn't be county governments, because there is wide variance within a county.

I am not convinced Edison's taxes would go up with a merger, because I think they could reduce redundant jobs and services.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Camden

I would not cut teacher salaries. I would cut cop salaries in small, low or no crime towns. I would raise salaries for teachers and cops in Newark and Camden and similarly situated cities.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Camden

I would not cut teacher salaries. I would cut cop salaries in small, low or no crime towns. I would raise salaries for teachers and cops in Newark and Camden and similarly situated cities.

And the chances that police salaries would be cut are, um, infinitesimal or lower, even assuming that cutting police salaries would finance what you want. Please stay in the world of the practicable.

Or is your idea to keep individual salaries the same but to cut the number of cops? If that were a sound solution, then per capita costs of providing services would probably be exceptionally high in very small units, which, the study shows, is not the case.

This post was edited on 11/29 2:08 PM by camdenlawprof

 

[NotInRHouse]

Well, in a dream world where I am governor NIRH and have a cooperative legislature and Supreme Court I would cut the salaries and the money would go to subsidize RU haha ...but yes the current legal solution would be just don't hire cops after retirements and consolidate across the board, positions and municipalities.

I just don't agree with the idea that we need the current totals of police officers out there. We need more in the inner cities, and we need fewer in the suburbs, and I'd look to incentivize to get us there. Even here in Jersey City, according to our top officers, the problem is criminals from Newark, and if you read the paper that is born out. Nevermind the crime in the surrounding towns- all the big recent incidents have a Newark connection.

I don't think that study is taking that into account. It's written in a world where we are not defaulting on pension obligations, have cities filled with crime, and have massive corruption and abuse of power. If you consolidate and you eliminate an entire budget and replace none of the positions when the employees retire, divert the savings to our obligations, the inner cities, and grossly underfunded higher ed and infrastructure, you'd make a positive difference. 2-3 years after the fact, Joe Schmo will be loving his tax bill and unpotholed roads and not wondering why Officer Jones was not replaced from his duty at the end of the block raising funds ticketing people going 30 in a 25 and wringing his hands about 17 year olds playing music and drinking beer. NJ may be one of the richer states, so let's improve things for all New Jerseyans not just those with municipal jobs in cushy places.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Well, in a dream world where I am governor NIRH and have a cooperative legislature and Supreme Court I would cut the salaries and the money would go to subsidize RU haha ...but yes the current legal solution would be just don't hire cops after retirements and consolidate across the board, positions and municipalities.

I just don't agree with the idea that we need the current totals of police officers out there. We need more in the inner cities, and we need fewer in the suburbs, and I'd look to incentivize to get us there. Even here in Jersey City, according to our top officers, the problem is criminals from Newark, and if you read the paper that is born out. Nevermind the crime in the surrounding towns- all the big recent incidents have a Newark connection.

I don't think that study is taking that into account. It's written in a world where we are not defaulting on pension obligations, have cities filled with crime, and have massive corruption and abuse of power. If you consolidate and you eliminate an entire budget and replace none of the positions when the employees retire, divert the savings to our obligations, the inner cities, and grossly underfunded higher ed and infrastructure, you'd make a positive difference. 2-3 years after the fact, Joe Schmo will be loving his tax bill and unpotholed roads and not wondering why Officer Jones was not replaced from his duty at the end of the block raising funds ticketing people going 30 in a 25 and wringing his hands about 17 year olds playing music and drinking beer. NJ may be one of the richer states, so let's improve things for all New Jerseyans not just those with municipal jobs in cushy places.

You expect Joe Schmoe to be happy that his tax bill is the same and his money is now going to Newark?

By the way - if you increase the cop presence in Newark, and decrease it in the nearby burbs, what do you think criminals will do?

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Well, in a dream world where I am governor NIRH and have a cooperative legislature and Supreme Court I would cut the salaries and the money would go to subsidize RU haha ...but yes the current legal solution would be just don't hire cops after retirements and consolidate across the board, positions and municipalities.

I just don't agree with the idea that we need the current totals of police officers out there. We need more in the inner cities, and we need fewer in the suburbs, and I'd look to incentivize to get us there. Even here in Jersey City, according to our top officers, the problem is criminals from Newark, and if you read the paper that is born out. Nevermind the crime in the surrounding towns- all the big recent incidents have a Newark connection.

I don't think that study is taking that into account. It's written in a world where we are not defaulting on pension obligations, have cities filled with crime, and have massive corruption and abuse of power. If you consolidate and you eliminate an entire budget and replace none of the positions when the employees retire, divert the savings to our obligations, the inner cities, and grossly underfunded higher ed and infrastructure, you'd make a positive difference. 2-3 years after the fact, Joe Schmo will be loving his tax bill and unpotholed roads and not wondering why Officer Jones was not replaced from his duty at the end of the block raising funds ticketing people going 30 in a 25 and wringing his hands about 17 year olds playing music and drinking beer. NJ may be one of the richer states, so let's improve things for all New Jerseyans not just those with municipal jobs in cushy places.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Yes. This is NJ. It's a small state. We are all affected by problems in our cities.

The criminals are currently in places like Short Hills as we have seen- because it starts where they are based and feel the need to do these things.

And efdny- I did say if I was in charge (at first I though the picture was about a fraction ha). Consolidation can be reality; the rest of what I do, besides maybe legalization and taxation, would require rallying around an independent candidate for governor with a lot of cash, like a NJ Greg Orman or Jesse Ventura, that can just blame the morass (correctly) on Trenton and their enabling ways. I don't see any such person, which is unfortunate. And that person would have to really play his or her cards right to get some legislative cooperation, though NJ does assign its governor a lot of power.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Yes. This is NJ. It's a small state. We are all affected by problems in our cities.

The criminals are currently in places like Short Hills as we have seen- because it starts where they are based and feel the need to do these things.

And e5fdny- I did say if I was in charge (at first I though the picture was about a fraction ha). Consolidation can be reality; the rest of what I do, besides maybe legalization and taxation, would require rallying around an independent candidate for governor with a lot of cash, like a NJ Greg Orman or Jesse Ventura, that can just blame the morass (correctly) on Trenton and their enabling ways. I don't see any such person, which is unfortunate. And that person would have to really play his or her cards right to get some legislative cooperation, though NJ does assign its governor a lot of power.

It was this one or a pic of a single slice for my "pie in the sky" homage. LOL

 

[Korbermeister]

Ha! For a few minutes I was trying to correlate the phrase 'piece of the pie'to your comment ( glad I wasn't the only one)

 

[PurpleR]

Since we are playing Governor for the day, if it were me I would go in the opposite direction and remove a layer of government. I would eliminate County government. Bigger governemnt leads to greater corruption and less accountability . The further you get away from local government the less transparent and the less accountable and responsive their actions become. Unfortunately the cool aid that is being served in NJ is that consolidating municipal government will resolve property taxes. It is a crock.