Any town/village that even considers merging with the city is out of their minds. The city is a black hole that will suck the life out of any living thing it comes in contact with.

Quoted Text

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason:
Better still --  merge all the towns, villages and city into a single City-County .. with the legislative body elected from districts (equal population in all).

Yet another proposal from a Statist who wants to grow the size of government and seize the power from local government, with
who the people have a voice, and award it to bureaucrats.  DVOR, are you really this misguided or do you just make these suggestions
to evoke a response?

Are you supportive of one world government?

Those who support larger government are usually those who don't have to pay for the cost or who are receiving benefits from
bloated and inefficient programs that have no checks or controls.  DVOR, which are you?

Of course he is.

One world babydom as well.

Quoted from William Pen

Yet another proposal from a Statist who wants to grow the size of government and seize the power from local government, with
who the people have a voice, and award it to bureaucrats.  DVOR, are you really this misguided or do you just make these suggestions
to evoke a response?

Are you supportive of one world government?

Those who support larger government are usually those who don't have to pay for the cost or who are receiving benefits from
bloated and inefficient programs that have no checks or controls.  DVOR, which are you?

Actually - by creating one city-county .. one school district .. even combining most of the other taxing districts within the county  --- -> we would end up with LESS GOVERNMENT.   Basically -- we would be collapsing the local and county levels of government into a single level .. regional government.

Your statements that I am a statist or for "one world government" are - at best - laughable.   Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yeah. I have some nice swamp land down by the river to sell you too. Less government. OK.

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

Yeah. I have some nice swamp land down by the river to sell you too. Less government. OK.

I wouldn't buy the "dog poo" you wrap up and sell to folks .. and I certainly wouldn't buy any land from you either.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I wouldn't buy the "dog poo" you wrap up and sell to folks .. and I certainly wouldn't buy any land from you either.

yes you would....you would give it away at the grand opening of your dog park

Actually, by creating one city-county, you would be going against the one thing that the foundig fathers fought for, and that is a governmet as close to the people as possible.  This is the reason that the federal government was supposedto be limited, to have the government as close to the people as possible.

That's toooo funny since the townspeople within the county NEVER say they are from SCHENECTADY.
They say they are from NISKY, ROTTERDAM, SCOTIA/GLENVILLE, DUANESBURG, PRINCETOWN...........they avoid the word SCHENECTADY at all costs!!!!

Quoted from bumblethru

That's toooo funny since the townspeople within the county NEVER say they are from SCHENECTADY.
They say they are from NISKY, ROTTERDAM, SCOTIA/GLENVILLE, DUANESBURG, PRINCETOWN...........they avoid the word SCHENECTADY at all costs!!!!

I am proud to say that I am from Schenectady ...  and from Rotterdam.

And .. the fact is that consolidation is coming  ... sooner or later ...  and sooner would be better.

Quoted from Kevin March

Actually, by creating one city-county, you would be going against the one thing that the foundig fathers fought for, and that is a governmet as close to the people as possible.  This is the reason that the federal government was supposedto be limited, to have the government as close to the people as possible.

Actually - our Founding Fathers fought for the creation of a "democratic republic" -- they probably would have settled for having elected members of the British Parliament.

I don't buy your statement that they wanted government "as close to the people as possible".   For one thing, the Founding Fathers put limits on who could vote   (land owners, church members, male, etc)  --  and they did not adopt a direct democracy but rather one where we would send representatives to  FAR OFF state capitals and a FAR OFF national capital.   Just take a look at the size of the earliest colonies --- Virginia (included all of the present state plus what is now Kentucky and West Virginia) -- and it took many weeks to travel from the farthest part of that state to the state capital.    New York -- it took a week (in good weather) to travel from NYC to Albany.

The Founding Fathers limited the powers of the federal government -- not to keep the government close to the people -- but because they wanted to keep the state governments stronger than the federal government.     They literally say  the US as a joining of several sovereign states -- that view would not really change drastically until the mid 1800's and we ended up fighting a Civil War because of that -- and even today .. we hear echoes of "states' rights"