For champions of government efficiency and reduced taxes, something encouraging happened during New York”™s most recent village elections. Voters approved four out of five propositions that called for the dissolution of their village government.
The largest of these villages is the picturesque community of Seneca Falls in the Finger Lakes region. With a population of about 6,000, it is best known as the historic site of the first convention for women”™s suffrage.
Seneca Falls would not have been on many people”™s short list as most likely to be dissolved. But beyond its historic significance and its attractive main street, Seneca Falls was not unlike so many other municipalities plagued by loss of revenues, higher taxes and modest prospects for jobs creation.
After a couple years of earnest debate as to whether residents could still afford both town and village governments ”“ marked by the mayor”™s and many village workers”™ opposition ”“ a majority of residents ultimately felt that the status quo was no longer sustainable. On March 16, they voted 1,198 to 1,112 in favor of dissolution.
The Hudson Valley is home to 87 village governments in nine counties. Some are fiscally stable, many are not. In Sullivan and Ulster counties in particular, the debate rages in villages that are wrestling with fiscal erosion on one hand, and residents”™ fears about loss of identity and tradition on the other.
There is no denying that the dissolution process is generally a long and fractious one. Perhaps for that reason alone, we owe it to ourselves to look at the many other measures that can produce cost efficiencies in the near term, even while the community wrestles with the most fundamental of restructuring propositions.
Well before a referendum ever gets on the ballot, a community should review the menu of opportunities, ranging from intermunicipal collaboration and shared services, to functional consolidation within municipal departments, and shared use of facilities. Even conversation among neighboring municipal governments can spark cost-saving ideas. With state and federal subsidies drying up, the time has come to exercise as many of these options as possible ”“ and as soon as possible.
Municipal officials with the courage to say “now is the time to try a new approach” deserve our respect. Not all new ideas will fly, but their sponsors need our emphatic support.
Given the bitter realities that accompany the current economy, the choice is clear: Ride out the storm if you can afford to, or enter into a dialogue and embrace new ways to provide local government.
Election Day for five villages proved that this dialogue is under way.
Jonathan Drapkin is president and CEO of Pattern for Progress. Reach him at jdrapkin@pfprogress.org.
