Statement to RH Council - June 20, 2005
My name is Andy Rochman and I live in Clayton. Both Clayton and Richmond Heights have told their citizens that a merger of the two cities is an idea worthy of consideration. Potential benefits, such as economies of scale, might accrue though it has been emphasized that such consolidation would not include a merger of school districts.
An idea worthy of consideration is not a reason in itself for outlaying dollars and time to study it. Possibly, Washington U and Fontbonne or Fontbonne and Concordia Seminary could enjoy economies of consolidation. Yet, given the difference in the cultures, is this vision worthy of study?
Why is a merger needed? Each City had stated that it is dealing from a position of strength. So, we citizens have concluded that nothing is seriously or irreparably broken. It is perplexing that no cogent rationale has been provided for even studying a merger of RH and Clayton. As the cities have already demonstrated, if there are potential cost-savings of consolidating functions, these could be realized without merging the cities. As pointed out in the November 11th meeting, such efforts already addressed are “cooperative police and fire dispatch, common purchasing, sharing of certain assets, cooperative street repairs and the like.”
Apart from some comments by Amy Liu of Brookings Institution to the citizens of Clayton on November 11th, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the economic and emotional downside that the cities’ merging could bring. Realistically, however, we know that in the beginning additional expense would arise – some because we would be opening a black box of unknown dimensions, some attributable to duplication of services, some to the costs of consolidation such as erection of new facilities and abandoning existing ones (there will be only one city hall). How long the road to payback may be could be well beyond the lifetimes of the current citizens. Is either city positioned to dig such a financial hole?
More important. Where human emotions are concerned, there is no such transaction as a merger. This is observed in the corporate world all the time. Generally, there are winners and losers as “we-they” becomes a new way of life. The culture of one community will be foisted on the other. But even the winners may lose something as their City name disappears or is conjoined with the other. Merging Richmond Heights and Clayton, like merging the United States and Canada, would involve the painstaking challenge of bringing together two bordering neighbors that have a lot of commonality but also vast dissimilarities.
Notwithstanding committing to the expense of conducting a study which may greatly exceed the suggested $35,000 to $40,000 cited in the April/May Richmond Heights Community Update, prudence would demand demonstrating a priori that you can identify concrete reasons why it might be worth the pain to merge the two cities. In the 7+ months since the November 11th meeting, have the RH Council and Clayton Board of Aldermen assembled and discussed the mutual merits of conducting a merger study?
If you can’t jot down off the top of your head 5 strong reasons why a merger would benefit your citizens, then you really have to question whether a measure as severe as a merger should even be considered let alone studied. You don’t need someone else to convince you of its benefits.
An idea worthy of consideration is not a reason in itself for outlaying dollars and time to study it. Possibly, Washington U and Fontbonne or Fontbonne and Concordia Seminary could enjoy economies of consolidation. Yet, given the difference in the cultures, is this vision worthy of study?
Why is a merger needed? Each City had stated that it is dealing from a position of strength. So, we citizens have concluded that nothing is seriously or irreparably broken. It is perplexing that no cogent rationale has been provided for even studying a merger of RH and Clayton. As the cities have already demonstrated, if there are potential cost-savings of consolidating functions, these could be realized without merging the cities. As pointed out in the November 11th meeting, such efforts already addressed are “cooperative police and fire dispatch, common purchasing, sharing of certain assets, cooperative street repairs and the like.”
Apart from some comments by Amy Liu of Brookings Institution to the citizens of Clayton on November 11th, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the economic and emotional downside that the cities’ merging could bring. Realistically, however, we know that in the beginning additional expense would arise – some because we would be opening a black box of unknown dimensions, some attributable to duplication of services, some to the costs of consolidation such as erection of new facilities and abandoning existing ones (there will be only one city hall). How long the road to payback may be could be well beyond the lifetimes of the current citizens. Is either city positioned to dig such a financial hole?
More important. Where human emotions are concerned, there is no such transaction as a merger. This is observed in the corporate world all the time. Generally, there are winners and losers as “we-they” becomes a new way of life. The culture of one community will be foisted on the other. But even the winners may lose something as their City name disappears or is conjoined with the other. Merging Richmond Heights and Clayton, like merging the United States and Canada, would involve the painstaking challenge of bringing together two bordering neighbors that have a lot of commonality but also vast dissimilarities.
Notwithstanding committing to the expense of conducting a study which may greatly exceed the suggested $35,000 to $40,000 cited in the April/May Richmond Heights Community Update, prudence would demand demonstrating a priori that you can identify concrete reasons why it might be worth the pain to merge the two cities. In the 7+ months since the November 11th meeting, have the RH Council and Clayton Board of Aldermen assembled and discussed the mutual merits of conducting a merger study?
If you can’t jot down off the top of your head 5 strong reasons why a merger would benefit your citizens, then you really have to question whether a measure as severe as a merger should even be considered let alone studied. You don’t need someone else to convince you of its benefits.
The RH Council voted without discussion 6-2 in favor of participating in the Joint Study Merger Study.
posted by Andrew Rochman
0 COMMENTS
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home