Jump to content
GoDuBois.com
Sign in to follow this  
BigT

Joint Municipal Building

Recommended Posts

Then why not bring in Penfield, Sykesville, Troutville, etc.  Bigger is not always better.  


"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything"

Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Petee said:

Then why not bring in Penfield, Sykesville, Troutville, etc.  Bigger is not always better.  

Because Penfield, Sykesville, and Troutville are not part of the DuBois area. 

 

I agree that it makes so much more sense from the tax payer standpoint. The saved revenue can be spent elsewhere! It's asinine that we have to pay for two of everything! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Petee said:

Then why not bring in Penfield, Sykesville, Troutville, etc.  Bigger is not always better.  


When you have (2) governments sharing the same building, and splitting costs of the building, both parties pay 1/2 as much as they did prior.

Pennsylvania is the poster child for over-government.   Most states only have 3 layers: federal, state, and county governments.  Then if you live within an incorporated town(borough) or city, that additional layer.

In PA, regardless of where you live you have:  federal, state, county, borough/town/city/township.    All places in PA lives under 4 layers.

Then on top of that you have an additional municipality - school districts.   Often multiple within a county, and said districts can extend beyond that county.    So the tax payers of the county are paying for one to many different school boards.

PA tax payers could save a crap load of money by unifying all school districts in a county into one(it works everywhere else).   And unify all local government that isn't an incorporated borough/town/city into the county(it works here too).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Petee said:

Then why not bring in Penfield, Sykesville, Troutville, etc.  Bigger is not always better.  

My understanding is that they would remain separate, but be housed in the same building.  That makes some sense because the police both use the same booking equipment, and this way it wouldn't require the city prisoners to be transported to the Sandy Twp. building.

 


:pray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an idea that deserves to be explored.  Since Falls Creek is now tied into the City's water and sewer systems it might make some sense to bring them into the conversation.  The land mass of Falls Creek is contiguous with Sandy Township also, so again something to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, bigger isn't always better, and once joined, it couldn't be undone.  We could be stuck with a conglomerated mess.  I agree heartily on a joint building for prisoners and whatever else makes serious sense, but who wants that water nonsense again.  Who wants to live in a more complicated and demanding area?  We live in this part of Pennsylvania for a reason.

One little cooperative step at a time is safer and easier to guide.  Does anyone else agree that the ONLY thing this is about is money into someone else's hands?  The country residents in the township have so much to lose.  We don't want to be part of a questionably restricted life style.


"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything"

Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, L8RG8R said:

Then which manager is out of a job?  I’m assuming Herm’s proposal doesn’t include him taking a pay cut. 

Here is an idea, why doesn't everyone keep there jobs and as time goes on and people retire don't replace the positions that have double! Seems logical to me. Then again, comments like yours are the reason the City and TWP are still separate entities. Instead of poking the fire where it doesn't need to be poked, lets work on unifying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Petee said:

As I said, bigger isn't always better, and once joined, it couldn't be undone.  We could be stuck with a conglomerated mess.  I agree heartily on a joint building for prisoners and whatever else makes serious sense, but who wants that water nonsense again.  Who wants to live in a more complicated and demanding area?  We live in this part of Pennsylvania for a reason.

One little cooperative step at a time is safer and easier to guide.  Does anyone else agree that the ONLY thing this is about is money into someone else's hands?  The country residents in the township have so much to lose.  We don't want to be part of a questionably restricted life style.

You would not be restricted whatsoever from my understanding. It would be zoned differently, so you can still shoot your guns and build your bonfires. Seems that it works well for everywhere else in the country. Not to sound mean, but whenever the older anit-dubois and older anti-twp residents dwindle out of the picture it is inevitable that we will become one. The younger generation that is taking over around here sees the whole and big picture. This area is so underdeveloped. It will continue to stay that way as long as we are separate. There are millions of dollars in missed grant money for both municipalities that go elsewhere because we are not one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DuB814 said:

You would not be restricted whatsoever from my understanding. It would be zoned differently, so you can still shoot your guns and build your bonfires. Seems that it works well for everywhere else in the country. Not to sound mean, but whenever the older anit-dubois and older anti-twp residents dwindle out of the picture it is inevitable that we will become one. The younger generation that is taking over around here sees the whole and big picture. This area is so underdeveloped. It will continue to stay that way as long as we are separate. There are millions of dollars in missed grant money for both municipalities that go elsewhere because we are not one.  

There is NO GUARANTEE that we wouldn't be stepping into a nightmare.  Many people here have very little money already.  Does anyone think this would not cost the residents more?  What happens when more is demanded but it doesn't exist?  I have very little trust that it would be a quality of life improvement.  Bigger government is all I would expect.  Most of the Sandy people don't want to live in a State College atmosphere which is an absolute nightmare to even drive through.


"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything"

Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Petee said:

There is NO GUARANTEE that we wouldn't be stepping into a nightmare.  Many people here have very little money already.  Does anyone think this would not cost the residents more?  What happens when more is demanded but it doesn't exist?  I have very little trust that it would be a quality of life improvement.  Bigger government is all I would expect.  Most of the Sandy people don't want to live in a State College atmosphere which is an absolute nightmare to even drive through.

What you're saying is that continuing to believe that the illusion of maintaining the status quo is a wonderful thing. The reality is that it isn't.

There's no guarantee that doing nothing isn't creating a nightmare of it's own.

Also, you mentioned a few posts back about taking little cooperative steps. This is one of them. 

Building a facility that houses both government entities isn't an inevitable step toward consolidation. All it does is centralize things.

As it is now, a Sandy Township resident that has a problem with water/sewage billing has to go to the township building. If the township doesn't believe it's their problem, the resident then has to go to the city building. Then, if they're told it is indeed a township problem, they must again return to the township building. Now, if you put them in the same building, the trip is reduced to a trip down the hall. Not only that, but all three parties (resident/township/city) could all likely get together face-to-face in a single trip without all the "he-said, she-said" issues.

I think that would qualify as a 'quality of life' improvement.


"Be still, my fingers, be still" - fedup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:


When you have (2) governments sharing the same building, and splitting costs of the building, both parties pay 1/2 as much as they did prior.

Pennsylvania is the poster child for over-government.   Most states only have 3 layers: federal, state, and county governments.  Then if you live within an incorporated town(borough) or city, that additional layer.

In PA, regardless of where you live you have:  federal, state, county, borough/town/city/township.    All places in PA lives under 4 layers.

Then on top of that you have an additional municipality - school districts.   Often multiple within a county, and said districts can extend beyond that county.    So the tax payers of the county are paying for one to many different school boards.

PA tax payers could save a crap load of money by unifying all school districts in a county into one(it works everywhere else).   And unify all local government that isn't an incorporated borough/town/city into the county(it works here too).   

Ive been fighting for that even before I was on GoDubois. County school administration. Works in 85% of the rest of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a great step forward and definitely something to explore.   I agree with Dub814. The younger generation does not have the prejudices that the older anti-consolidation generation has.  Consolidation will eventually happen.  It should be cost effective for all concerned.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Petee said:

There is NO GUARANTEE that we wouldn't be stepping into a nightmare.  Many people here have very little money already.  Does anyone think this would not cost the residents more?  What happens when more is demanded but it doesn't exist?  I have very little trust that it would be a quality of life improvement.  Bigger government is all I would expect.  Most of the Sandy people don't want to live in a State College atmosphere which is an absolute nightmare to even drive through.

So, if people have very little money as it is, wouldn't it make sense to combine so we can use the left over money on other necessities instead of raising taxes to offset the cost for needed stuff? Once again, I don't want to be mean or rude by saying this but the older generation is afraid of change and growth. I totally understand that too. Many people take the safer option and just to get by. I, personally, would love to see the area grow and succeed. Just my opinion. 

As far as a State College atmosphere, this area is so far behind we will all be dead and gone before that happens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he is proposing that City and Sandy share the same building for government business and police? I do not think either of the current separate buildings are large enough to house both entities. So we would have to foot the bill for a brand new bigger, better building to built somewhere and the 2 old buildings sitting empty that people are still footing the bill. Does not sound like a cost saving measure to me. Sounds like an excuse to spend more money. Until there is an actual merger, keep them separate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trillyn said:

So he is proposing that City and Sandy share the same building for government business and police? I do not think either of the current separate buildings are large enough to house both entities. So we would have to foot the bill for a brand new bigger, better building to built somewhere and the 2 old buildings sitting empty that people are still footing the bill. Does not sound like a cost saving measure to me. Sounds like an excuse to spend more money. Until there is an actual merger, keep them separate. 

Sandy is already thinking about a new building. The Supervisors have okayed to have a cost estimate for the new building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DuB814 said:

So, if people have very little money as it is, wouldn't it make sense to combine so we can use the left over money on other necessities instead of raising taxes to offset the cost for needed stuff? Once again, I don't want to be mean or rude by saying this but the older generation is afraid of change and growth. I totally understand that too. Many people take the safer option and just to get by. I, personally, would love to see the area grow and succeed. Just my opinion. 

As far as a State College atmosphere, this area is so far behind we will all be dead and gone before that happens!

I work every day for growth and change.  That's not the problem.  You have two vastly different groups of people here, people who want the less stressful do-it-yourself way of life, and those who want everything luxury available and are willing to part with their freedoms to get them.  It has nothing to do with who has money and who doesn't.  Older people have already known the peace of less government,  and achievement they worked for, and don't want to live in the middle of anything even vaguely reminiscent of a gated community.  Heck, some of us don't even want one nearby because it can obviously destroy the sense of community.  When any sort of government change happens, everyone should have a secure place in that new set up, but odds are, the poorer, older and more outdoor living citizens will lose some of their freedoms in favor of big business, big government and big stress.

I love my home and where I live, and we chose it carefully many years ago.  I hope it remains an oasis for those who come here after us, and I'd like to see it all dealt with carefully and with much forethought and cooperation, taking everyone's security into consideration BEFORE any changes are made.

That said, I am glad the police, emergency and fire people are working and building together.  They are doing it one step at a time so everyone can adjust accordingly and grow carefully.  I'd like to see more cooperative efforts on the part of both entities, but like the Reitz stone, and the round-abouts, you can't just dream up an idea and toss it out there.  There has to be a genuine need so it turns out to be a good thing for all involved.


"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything"

Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...