By Jim Townsend | Special to The Press
Before we change anything about the way Michigan government works, we should look at the facts.
While some proponents of consolidation argue that Michigan has more local governments than the rest of the country, the fact is that Michigan is 33rd in the number of local governments per capita, while we have the ninth largest population in the country.
More than half of Michigan residents live in townships, and the townships comprise 96 percent of the land area of Michigan.
The townships have for decades worked together to provide services and keep costs down for their residents. The majority of them have long been involved in service-sharing arrangements with other local governments for things like sewer and water services. There would be even more of this cooperation if state law did not impede the process.
Abolishing townships and consolidating the other services townships provide would be a bad idea for a number of reasons.
First, costs would actually rise instead of decreasing. For example, a recent study by Michigan State University economist Eric Scorsone indicates that consolidating township assessing services at the county level would increase their cost by nearly 10 percent. The study also found the majority of counties would not have the physical or labor capacity to provide assessing services, and assessing is just a small fraction of what township governments do.
|• Guest Commentary: Yes to consolidation of government services|
Second, abolishing township government would at best require an expensive constitutional amendment, or perhaps a Michigan constitutional convention. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce estimates the cost of the convention to be at least $45 million. Our state can ill afford that luxury. Merger costs also would be high. In 1996, the Canadian province of Nova Scotia merged the city of Halifax with three surrounding areas to form a “supercity.” Merger costs were more than double the cost predicted, annual savings from the merger turned out to be zero.
Third, when government is centralized and removed from residents locally, it brings unpleasant results. Like most township officials, I meet with residents every week concerning a variety of issues and problems. Most come in to see me unannounced. If the government is centralized at the county level, each of those people will need to drive to downtown Grand Rapids and pay to park before they have a chance to talk to anybody. Personal contact with local officials who live and work in the township provide residents the opportunity to solve problems that won’t exist with a “one size fits all” government.
Finally, zoning boards and land use planning boards made up of township residents decide these vital matters locally. Does anybody really think this will be better handled by county personnel who don’t live in the townships?
In reality, the only ones who stand to gain from consolidation are cities like Grand Rapids. They face great fiscal pressure, and would very much like to see their problems taken over by counties that could heavily tax the outlying townships.
Local communities should not lose their right to be self-governed, and any plan that would increase expenses, as county consolidation would do, is a bad idea.
Jim Townsend is Alpine Township treasurer and a local attorney.