Friday, October 05, 2012

Fishers Reorganization, Part 1

In the wake of the lawsuit I participated in, and lost, against the Town of Fishers, the Town gained the green light towards placing two questions on the ballot. From the Town's website:

The questions will appear on the ballot as follows:
  1. "Shall the Town of Fishers and Fall Creek Township reorganize as a single political subdivision?" (all voters in Fall Creek Township and all incorporated voters in Delaware Township will be able to vote on this question)
  2. "Shall the Town of Fishers change into a city?" (only incorporated voters in the Town of Fishers will be able to vote on this question)
The following table shows which form of government you are selecting by how you vote on questions 1 & 2:
 
Question 1
Question 2
Outcome
No
Yes
Second Class City
Yes
Yes
Reorganized City
Yes
No
Reorganized City
No
No
Remains a Town
 
What do I favor? Question 1. Yes; Question 2. No.

Short explanations. On Question 1, for the reorganization, the functions of township government are minimal, can be easily enough absorbed into the Town without need to hire additional personnel, cost savings in the elimination of a layer of government, and that absorption does not worry me in the functions becoming too remote as to cause a lack of accountability. So, a 'yes' vote.

On Question 2, I have never been in favor of Fishers becoming a city, even while I was participating in the suit. My fears upon becoming a city lie with Carmel (esp) and Westfield- both former towns, both now cities, both now have a bloated executive branch with pet projects galore, and higher taxes to match. Proponents of Fishers becoming a city have touted checks and balances, and that could be a compelling argument, except for the real-life result that checks and balances are completely absent in our neighboring cities. The councils could not effectively thwart the spending on the arts and sports palaces, on TIF district issues, on bonding, on borrow and spend, etc. In fact, there was the recent episode in Carmel with the Mayor doing an end run around the city council. No thank you. So, a 'no' vote.

This will result in the Reorganized City. I could as easily accept a 'No-No' vote where Fishers remains a town, except that I prefer the reorganization of Fall Creek & Fishers together. My biggest fear, one that outstrips all other concerns by a country mile, is becoming the Second Class City, with the mayor a la Carmel's Jim Brainard.

At the end of the day, I had to look at what I thought would be the best form of government for Fishers given the choices available on this ballot.

5 comments:

CityYes said...

And for the opposite point of view:

http://cityyes.blogspot.com/2012/08/takeover-of-fall-creek-township.html

RAE said...

so you'd rather serve a 7-headed master than a 1 headed master that you could vote out?

Mike Kole said...

Again, look at Carmel. Mayor Brainard has been impossible to vote out. But- council members there have been voted out, as have Fishers council members.

RAE said...

isn't this the term limit arguement??? if the people of carmel hate brainard so much they would've voted him out...it's not like he's a middle-eastern dictator who magically gets 100% of the votes...he has people running against him. I just have a hard time believing the reason is a "mayor" will do what he wants when the council does that already anyway

Mike Kole said...

To get to the important thing here, I do not want a visionary mayor of any stripe. Here's where we can really compare: What kinds of pet projects have Fishers and Carmel come up with?

Fishers just opened an amphitheater. I don't like that one bit, as it isn't the job of government to provide arts & entertainment. That's for the private sector. Carmel has the Palladium. Clearly, there's a difference in scale there. Then we can compare the bond load, the number of public employees per capita, and a variety of other things that leave me with the conclusion that the strong visionary mayor leads to bigger government. By far.

Don't get me wrong- I'd rather have the kind of municipal government that doesn't undertake arts & entertainment at all. But, given the choices, this is a no-brainer for me.