William G. Dressel Jr., NJ League of Municipalities
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora has sponsored two bills in the legislature, which would circumvent a Commission established by the legislature just two years ago and supersede the will of the only people directly affected by the bills. The first (A-3490) specifically directs the consolidation of several municipalities on a barrier island. The second bill (A-3690) requires “more than 20 hole-and-donut towns to combine within 10 years.” The League of Municipalities opposes both of these bills. We know that this opposition might not be popular with legislators or journalists looking for simple solutions to our property tax crisis. But the opposition is both reasonable and rational. Let me explain.
It is entirely true that efficiency was not the goal of those responsible for the birth of many local governments in our Garden State. Many of these reasons that led to their creation no longer exist today. These current divisions might even work to the disadvantage of a municipality. But this does not provide a mandate for a distant legislature to dictate wholesale consolidations.
Each situation is unique. Consolidation of services does not always result in lower costs. In many circumstances it has been shown that consolidating units of government can cost more than leaving them separate. It has also been unequivocally shown that many smaller municipalities cost less to operate than larger municipalities.
People choose to live in a municipality for various reasons. Whatever the reasons, they have chosen that place as their home. In a democratic society, where change such as this is a matter of free choice, it should be up to the residents to decide if they wish to change their place of residence or merge their hometown with a neighboring municipality.
As was seen in the attempt made in the Princetons in 1996, when their consideration of a consolidation failed, the municipality that would benefit the most financially from the consolidation voted against the question. Why? We do not know for sure. But it seems awfully clear that the decision was not based on mere-financial criteria.
News stories of several years ago tell much of the story. Many people stated that consolidation will save money and should occur. However, when asked if consolidation would be good for their municipality, there was a uniform negative response. Consolidation should be imposed on others but not on my municipality. This tells the whole story.
Legislators should permit the Local Unit Alignment Reorganization and Consolidation (LUARC) Commission to do its work methodically and accurately. Allow the members of the Commission to consider the myriad questions concerning the efficiency of providing specific municipal services. Allow specific municipalities to study the question to their own satisfaction to determine if the conditions in their municipality favor consolidation. And let the municipal residents decide for themselves what is in their own best interests instead of a distant government telling them what is good for them. Is this not one of the reasons we choose to live in a democratic society?
William G. Dressel, Jr.
Executive Director
NJ League
of Municipalities

