Consolidation Passes in City and Township

[Guest Guest John]

69.5% vote yes in the city....50.6% vote yes in Sandy.

[Turd Ferguson]

It's about time.  

[pennstater]

Awesome.  Finally moving forward. The 100 year feud is finally over.  It only took a hundred years to bury the hatchet. 

[Gator11]

glad I sold my home and lots in sandy

[Illiterate]

1 hour ago, pennstater said:

Awesome.  Finally moving forward. The 100 year feud is finally over.  It only took a hundred years to bury the hatchet. 

Not quite...I expect at least another 5 years of inane bickering, lawsuits, and general foot-dragging and disorganized resistance.

[Basset3]

5 minutes ago, Illiterate said:

Not quite...I expect at least another 5 years of inane bickering, lawsuits, and general foot-dragging and disorganized resistance.

Look back at the Barnesboro/Spangler consolidation....that will give you a view of what is likely to happen; just as you described.

[jaman]

Both governments are against the type of rule.  I like consolidation but they were snookered on the government. You now got Consolidation. But you now still have the same form of government BAD.  And you will end up with  the same influences running this area. Now on a bigger scale.  When you wake up and realize that Home Rule was the way to go. Dont cheer too early.

[jaman]

1 hour ago, pennstater said:

Awesome.  Finally moving forward. The 100 year feud is finally over.  It only took a hundred years to bury the hatchet. 

Have to disagree this time  my Go Dubois Bud.  Consolidation good. Form of Government BAD. Sandy and even Dubois governments recognized this. 

[Illiterate]

19 minutes ago, Basset3 said:

Look back at the Barnesboro/Spangler consolidation....that will give you a view of what is likely to happen; just as you described.

Change is difficult..I get.  Especially if you have been engage in a pointless fued since at least the late 19th century.

[Guest Pro Trump]

34 minutes ago, jaman said:

Both governments are against the type of rule.  

Were they?  Was the City really against it?  They had input on the question and supported it for months.  Then, knowing it will pass in the City overwhelmingly no matter what, come out against it the week before the election saying that it is bad for the City residents.  Seems odd doesn't it?

Perhaps they knew township residents would think "if it is bad for the city it must be good for us".  Did that logic get at least 17 township residents to change their vote to yes?  I would guess that it did.

I think the township voters got suckered into voting in favor of a bad deal.

[BigT]

I believe that the form of government can be changed once consolidation happens. Let's work together to make it happen!

 

[Guest Interested]

30 minutes ago, BigT said:

I believe that the form of government can be changed once consolidation happens. Let's work together to make it happen!

 

There's nothing wrong with the form of government.  But the roles and responsibilities of the mayor, council and city manager need to modified from what they are now.  Then, smart, energetic, involved and community-oriented people need to be elected - - - people who will select a professional and competent city manager to execute the policies that they (council and mayor) put forth.  I would love to help the community write the job descriptions for all of these positions.  The area could be vibrant and growing, but not if everyone continues to rely on the 'good old boys.'

[DuB814]

I wonder how many people on here lost sleep over this last night? 

[jaman]

4 hours ago, Guest Pro Trump said:

Were they?  Was the City really against it?  They had input on the question and supported it for months.  Then, knowing it will pass in the City overwhelmingly no matter what, come out against it the week before the election saying that it is bad for the City residents.  Seems odd doesn't it?

Perhaps they knew township residents would think "if it is bad for the city it must be good for us".  Did that logic get at least 17 township residents to change their vote to yes?  I would guess that it did.

I think the township voters got suckered into voting in favor of a bad deal.

At this point, you maybe right. Home Rule Charter should have been put on paper to vote.  And more of the behind the scenes faces will have to come out. Other then Barry Abbott, Jason Gray, and Sam Mollica.  Stay Tuned. Illiterate is on point.

[Cacao]

Are the folks in charge qualified and/or smart enough to complete the consolidation process without screwing it up? 

I don't live in either municipality, but it does have a secondary effect on my life.

 

[Keyser Soze]

9 hours ago, jaman said:

Have to disagree this time  my Go Dubois Bud.  Consolidation good. Form of Government BAD. Sandy and even Dubois governments recognized this. 

The Sandy and DuBois governments were interested in  the tax raising (lowering) aspects of Home Rule. ( More earned income tax and less real estate tax) 

This type of government can be voted on later.  

There are advantages and disadvantages of Home Rule.

What is home rule? 

Why adopt home rule? What are the advantages?Simply put, home rule allows a municipality much more freedom to self-govern, which in turn can be empowering for citizens. It also limits interference from state legislation, beneficial on the state-level because it frees up the General Assembly to focus on statewide issues.

It can be a way to address financial difficulties, as home rule allows a municipality to raise taxes. Altoona is currently in the process of pursuing a home rule designation as a way to get out of Act 47.

What are some disadvantages?

Home rule can give a lot of power to local leaders or the loudest voices without much oversight from the state.

The charter can be cumbersome—any change to a home rule charter requires a referendum on a ballot (and many changes could mean a really long ballot). On the other hand, the very fact that a charter can be changed by a simple vote can lead to instability if, say, a municipality changed its charter frequently.

Perhaps the most common objection is that Pa. home rule municipalities aren’t bound by state-set tax limits. While this is an advantage to governments that want to increase revenue, this may not be appealing to citizens who don’t want to see their taxes go up.

Home rule could also make it harder to address issues that affect a wider region. Neighboring municipalities are bound by their own home rule charters and aren’t required to cooperate with other local governments.

https://whyy.org/articles/what-is-home-rule/

[Keyser Soze]

5 hours ago, jaman said:

At this point, you maybe right. Home Rule Charter should have been put on paper to vote.  And more of the behind the scenes faces will have to come out. Other then Barry Abbott, Jason Gray, and Sam Mollica.  Stay Tuned. Illiterate is on point.

The Township voted not to pursue Home Rule Charter when they voted to end the process in June.

Using the ballot question from 2002 was the only option because the other process required  numerous candidates to gather petition signatures and then be elected to serve on the Home Rule study commission 

There were no other " behind the scene faces"

[Guest John]

36 minutes ago, Keyser Soze said:

The Township voted not to pursue Home Rule Charter when they voted to end the process in June.

Using the ballot question from 2002 was the only option because the other process required  numerous candidates to gather petition signatures and then be elected to serve on the Home Rule study commission 

There were no other " behind the scene faces"

When you say "The Township" are you referring to Bill Beers, Mark Sullivan, Kevin Salandra and Jim Jeffers...the township supervisors who made the decision to end discussions about consolidation with the City due to what they said was lack of interest from the township residents despite a poll that they ordered showing the opposite?  

So although it ended up only passing by a slim margin in the township, I think reasonable people would conclude that there was significantly more support for the measure before the township supervisors and Treasure Lake GM Ed Clark came out against it.  Makes me wonder what these four gentlemen's true motivation was for walking away from the project in June?  Clearly it was not really due to lack of interest from township residents.  

[jaman]

15 hours ago, Keyser Soze said:

The Sandy and DuBois governments were interested in  the tax raising (lowering) aspects of Home Rule. ( More earned income tax and less real estate tax) 

This type of government can be voted on later.  

There are advantages and disadvantages of Home Rule.

What is home rule? 

Why adopt home rule? What are the advantages?Simply put, home rule allows a municipality much more freedom to self-govern, which in turn can be empowering for citizens. It also limits interference from state legislation, beneficial on the state-level because it frees up the General Assembly to focus on statewide issues.

It can be a way to address financial difficulties, as home rule allows a municipality to raise taxes. Altoona is currently in the process of pursuing a home rule designation as a way to get out of Act 47.

What are some disadvantages?

Home rule can give a lot of power to local leaders or the loudest voices without much oversight from the state.

The charter can be cumbersome—any change to a home rule charter requires a referendum on a ballot (and many changes could mean a really long ballot). On the other hand, the very fact that a charter can be changed by a simple vote can lead to instability if, say, a municipality changed its charter frequently.

Perhaps the most common objection is that Pa. home rule municipalities aren’t bound by state-set tax limits. While this is an advantage to governments that want to increase revenue, this may not be appealing to citizens who don’t want to see their taxes go up.

Home rule could also make it harder to address issues that affect a wider region. Neighboring municipalities are bound by their own home rule charters and aren’t required to cooperate with other local governments.

https://whyy.org/articles/what-is-home-rule/

Nice post.Yes it would effect taxes, but the people would have more input> If the Home Rule officials start down that path. The citizens could just change the officials. I d rather have limited government. And this would eliminate most overreach by the state government. It may be "cumbersome" but the people would get to vote on it as stated here.