Memphis/Shelby County Merger/Consolidation “the Answer”?

Several residents have called asking about how Lakeland would be affected if Memphis and Shelby County should “merge” or “consolidate”. The current discussion by Shelby County and Memphis and the “listening tour” of several strong advocates of consolidation has raised questions as to the impact of this for Lakeland.

Is Consolidation the answer to all of our problems, the “magic wand” that will fix everything?

First-I want to state I resent the statements and implications that persons against Consolidation aren’t supporting the regional area etc. While my first loyalty is to Lakeland, I also love this area and frequently defend Memphis when I hear Memphis or the area unjustly criticized.

I realize that a strong Shelby County, a strong Memphis, a strong Arlington etc. is important to Lakeland.

I just don’t’ see how “consolidation” is the answer to all of our problems. Perhaps we should be using our energy and time to study all alternatives instead of trying to push/oppose consolidation.

Currently, there is no “plan” for Consolidation, so I can only comment about City/County Consolidation in general and based on current Tennessee Law. Some of my general comments are based on a survey of the subject, but a good summary is by Chris Pineda, with the Government Innovator Network, “City-County Consolidation, and Diseconomies of Scale”. (Available on the Internet at http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/9331.pdf ,)

1. Lakeland, as a municipal entity, cannot be affected, as far as the City of Lakeland. Obviousy we would be affected in a lot of ways, but changes in the Charter cannot be made except by a vote of Lakeland residents based on current Tennessee Law.

2. Based on current Tennessee Law, residents of the Shelby County area outside of Memphis must vote and approve the merger/consolidation as a separate vote, which I certainly feel, is reasonable, since consolidation would have a huge impact on Lakeland residents.

3. The current Consolidation discussion centers on “saving money”. In fact, studies have indicated Consolidation increases costs, due to diseconomies of scale and the simple inefficiency of extremely large organizations.

4. Currently, Lakeland and the surrounding County and Cities have three representatives on the County Commission. I feel they do an excellent job of representing our interests on the County Commission.

Based on any discussions I have seen, I expect Lakeland would have a maximum of ONE representative with a 26 member “Memphis/Shelby County” government.

5. One of the statements by proponents of Consolidation is that it would “increase accountability”. Quite frankly, I don’t see how a larger organization is ever more “accountable”.

6. Literally all of the “plans” I have seen do have a bottom line on cost. They propose increasing the cost for the “suburbs” and County area and decrease taxes for the Memphis area. This raises my suspicions as to the REAL reason for consolidation.

An example is the push for “single source” school funding. The entire basis of that plan is to increase costs for the County residents and decrease costs for the Memphis property.

7. Studies have shown that another reason for consolidation is to increase and consolidate POWER, not the government. The current supporters of Consolidation (big government entities, , big business, news media, etc.) seem to substantiate this.

It is similar to big organizations that buy their competitors and then raise prices and lower service quality. It is not “efficiency”; it is to increase their power and profits. (I am not saying this is wrong for the private sector, and obviously sometimes mergers do work for the good of all, but both results are possible.)

According to Chris Pineda in “City-County Consolidation and Diseconomies of Scale”:

“A review of 25 research studies conducted over the past two decades on “fragmentation” versus centralization in U.S. local governments suggests “local government systems which are fragmented and de-concentrated are generally associated with lower spending and greater efficiency.” The power of bureaucracies grows the larger the centralized government becomes. This is evident in the difficulty locally elected officials have in privatizing municipal services in large cities. They are hemmed in by empire-building bureaucracies and government employee unions, which are stronger in the larger… municipalities.”

8. There are numerous alternatives to Consolidation. One of the main reasons stated for Consolidation is that it would help recruit business.

In my opinion, the model of the Greater Memphis Chamber of Commerce is an example of how one organization works for the benefit of the entire area. The Memphis Chamber involves representatives from the regional area, is a “unified” system of business information and recruitment (and they coordinate with the smaller Chamber of Commerce organizations that represent each smaller City) and works for the entire regional area.

There are numerous success stories of regional economic organizations that have been very successful in recruiting business and industry to a regional area.

This summary of my opinion on Consolidation is probably the first of many, if the current push for consolidation continues. I will appreciate your comments and thoughts.

I do feel that Lakeland is and should be involved in regional organizations that benefit both Lakeland and the region, but I do question why “consolidation” seems to be considered the only alternative.