Regionalization conversation long overdue

The list of most distressed cities in America includes a number of familiar names in Connecticut — Bridgeport, New Haven, Waterbury, Hartford. Had municipal lines been drawn differently a few hundred years ago, those could instead be some of the wealthiest communities in America.

That fact ought to drive our thinking on regionalization. Town lines someone came up with in the 1800s shouldn’t be the final word on how we design our government.

In general, though, that’s exactly what it comes down to. Governors and state legislators have tried all kinds of ways to encourage regionalization of services over the years, some meeting with success, most ending with frustration. Our cities are small and lack the political clout of the suburbs, whose leaders are not often interested in sharing their good fortune.

The result is a balkanized system where public safety and school systems, which make up the bulk of local budgets, are vastly different from one town to the next. While some public health functions and probate courts have been successfully regionalized, and some small towns out of necessity have combined schools, it remains a difficult climb for much of the state.

Connecticut suffers as a result. It’s inefficient in the extreme to duplicate services across multiple communities in a small area, which leads to higher public spending. Often people who rail loudest against big government are just as loud in fighting the kind of regionalization that could bring real efficiency to the public sector.

A new plan taking shape in the Capitol, from Guilford state Rep. Sean Scanlon, could start to change the terms of the debate. Though details remain in flux, the outline would entail a cap on local property tax increases matched by state aid for communities that pool services. As explained in the CT Mirror, “If two or more communities merge education services, the state would cover 10 percent of the costs. Similarly, Connecticut would pick up 5 percent for public safety programs and 2.5 percent for any other new service-sharing arrangements involving multiple cities or towns.”

Those numbers could change, but the idea of centering incentives rather than penalties makes it an interesting proposal. The carrot vs. stick approach is always a balancing act, but a cap on property taxes would be a new wrinkle given how dependent local governments are on the levy to fund their services, and how many complaints those taxes engender. It’s unclear how far this plan could go. Already other legislators have expressed skepticism. But the need for a real dialogue on regionalization has never gone away, and anything that could spark a movement in that direction needs to be encouraged.

The waste and inefficiency in our current system is something that would never be designed if we were starting from scratch. But there’s more to the need for change than saving money. School systems should be merged to give more children a better future, which benefits everyone. Government services should be regionalized because it makes sense.

This most recent proposal may or may not be the way to get there. But the more Connecticut engages in this necessary conversation, the closer we are to making real progress.

It’s inefficient in the extreme to duplicate services across multiple communities in a small geographic area, which leads to higher public spending.