Brockport Village dissolution - what’s missing?
I’m on the outside looking in at the whole consolidation thing, in particular the Village of Brockport, and Jeremy Moule’s piece in City News got me thinking.
- How much will actually be saved by dissolving the Village of Brockport (or any village for that matter? Seems this should be an easy math problem instead of speaking in generalities.
- What are the motivations behind this action?
- The village of Brockport can vote to dissolve itself, but does the Town of Sweden get a vote to absorb them?
From the City News piece,
The pro dissolution folks say:
“We just think that the village government isn’t sustainable anymore,” says Daniel Kuhn, a Brockport resident who helped organize the petition effort.
Between 2001 and 2009, village reserves shrunk from $5.5 million to $855,000. The Town of Sweden, on the other hand, saw its reserves increase from $2.2 million to $6.3 million in that same period.
“I guess I have the utmost confidence in the Town of Sweden, just looking at their numbers financially,” says Rhett King, a village resident who owns a financial services business in Brockport. King also helped gather signatures for the petition.
Group members dismiss accusations that they’re trying to eliminate the police and building codes.
Dissolution is meant to save village services, “including the police department,” Kuhn says. It’ll save money by eliminating overhead - the extra costs of a Village Hall, for example, and staff that duplicates staff at the town level, he says.
Where are the specifics here? Logic says that the taxes for residents in the Town of Sweden will increase, assuming the same level of services. I mean, someone has to pay for the services. Is this a cleaver bait and switch? Your taxes will decrease as the cost is spread throughout the Town of Sweden? - Not mentioning increases in Town taxes or elimination of services?
Seems that if it were about taxes -
There would be a piece of paper with some basic assumptions (which services are kept, or not, like the police department), a projected savings column (eliminated salaries, back office functions, etc ) and a cost column (I’m not convinced that the Town of Sweden’s taxes won’t eventually increase as their reserve is reduced to offset the services provided in the village). Most importantly, there would be a balance that would be independently verified to be a good number.
Does such thing exist? If not, why not?
The anti dissolution folks focus on the landlords:
Maziarz and other members of her group see the dissolution push as a thinly disguised effort to get rid of the village police department, as well as an attempt by landlords to get rid of zoning laws they dislike. The landlords have been trying to eliminate the police department for a decade, Maziarz says. And shortly before they began gathering signatures, a group of landlords lost a lawsuit against the village that, if successful, would have struck down a village code that requires periodic rental property inspections. Part of that code allows the village to obtain administrative search warrants so it can conduct the inspections if property owners won’t cooperate.
Now. About the landlords. If true, it is certainly their right and, like many political things, those who organize will carry the day. I suppose the landlords (i.e. business) could be out hustled, but it requires exposing flawed arguments that they may have.
Related posts:
This CITY article though suffering from a the fake neutrality of today’s reporters pretty much says what I have been hearing from Brockport residents about those leading the charge to eliminate the village