Texas counties

[jimrtex]

How often do people drive to their county courthouse?

Isn't that an argument to get rid of counties?

If we didn't have counties, there wouldn't be sheriffs. Without sheriffs, there would be no crime.

[jimrtex]

With all due respect I am yet to see why low population is an argument to merge counties to begin with. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Big waste of government funds?

Which government?

[Indy Texas]

would you merge them in the first place?

So you can grab their tax base, and make people drive an hour to the courthouse?

That doesn't seem to be a problem in much larger counties like San Bernardino, California or Nye County, Nevada.

[Brittain33]

would you merge them in the first place?

So you can grab their tax base, and make people drive an hour to the courthouse?

That doesn't seem to be a problem in much larger counties like San Bernardino, California or Nye County, Nevada.

True, and aren’t Texans tougher about doing long distance drives when they need to compared to people in many other parts of the country?

[jimrtex]

Why would you merge them in the first place?

So you can grab their tax base, and make people drive an hour to the courthouse?

That doesn't seem to be a problem in much larger counties like San Bernardino, California or Nye County, Nevada.

You misquoted me. The question was WHY

You pretend to have articulated a reason for eliminating counties, which you have clearly not, and then make it appear as I have critiqued your non-articulated position.

[jimrtex]

would you merge them in the first place?

So you can grab their tax base, and make people drive an hour to the courthouse?

That doesn't seem to be a problem in much larger counties like San Bernardino, California or Nye County, Nevada.

True, and aren’t Texans tougher about doing long distance drives when they need to compared to people in many other parts of the country?

But there is no necessity of them driving long distance to their local court house. It is true that Texans have more common sense than persons in many other parts of the country.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With all due respect I am yet to see why low population is an argument to merge counties to begin with. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Because a county, unless it's a CINO (county in name only), requires a certain number of full-time employees, no matter how small the population, so small counties are less efficient per capita, and have higher taxes than if they were merged into another county.

[jimrtex]

With all due respect I am yet to see why low population is an argument to merge counties to begin with. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Because a county, unless it's a CINO (county in name only), requires a certain number of full-time employees, no matter how small the population, so small counties are less efficient per capita, and have higher taxes than if they were merged into another county.

The smallest counties in Texas are typically fairly wealthy particularly if they have any oil.

Loving County has a $20 million budget. Many departments have only one or two employees. The exception appears to be the sheriff. If Loving County was merged into Ward, those tax dollars would be shipped off to Monahans or Kermit. Would there be any deputies assigned to Mentone?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Would there be any need for deputies assigned to Mentone?

So far as I can see, the best argument for maintaining the current county map is that the counties don't actually do enough for a re-organisation to be worth it.

[beesley]

Would there be any need for deputies assigned to Mentone?

So far as I can see, the best argument for maintaining the current county map is that the counties don't actually do enough for a re-organisation to be worth it.

Agreed, but better than our haphazard system of having unitary authorities, metro mayors, regular mayors, no mayors, metropolitan boroughs, district councils, county councils, community councils, parish councils, health boards, police and crime commissioners, but ultimately no real devolution.

[jimrtex]

Would there be any need for deputies assigned to Mentone?

So far as I can see, the best argument for maintaining the current county map is that the counties don't actually do enough for a re-organisation to be worth it.

So far as I can see, the best argument for maintaining the current counties is that there is NO substantive argument for change.

My weekly game of whist has been cancelled because of COVID-19, so I was wondering about getting rid of counties is no reason.

The sheriffs office in Loving County is probably mostly for stopping oil field equipment theft.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Yes, but the reason there's no need for change is that they don't provide many services, and the services they do provide are of marginal enough importance that restructuring is a waste of effort.

[jimrtex]

Yes, but the reason there's no need for change is that they don't provide many services, and the services they do provide are of marginal enough importance that restructuring is a waste of effort.

What services would you have them provide that they don't provide now?

[EastAnglianLefty]

I can't say I really care, given that I live several thousand miles away, have never visited west Texas and have no burning desire to do so.. But where a general reorganisation of administrative sub-divisions has been carried out in other nations in recent years, it's usually been because those sub-divisions provide major services (housing; transport; economic co-ordination etc.) to their residents and hence need to match up to the day to day horizons of their residents. None of those services are really provided by the counties at the moment, nor is there any obvious reason they might do so in future. So the case for a change basically comes down to wanting to fiddle about with maps.

[jimrtex]

I can't say I really care, given that I live several thousand miles away, have never visited west Texas and have no burning desire to do so.. But where a general reorganisation of administrative sub-divisions has been carried out in other nations in recent years, it's usually been because those sub-divisions provide major services (housing; transport; economic co-ordination etc.) to their residents and hence need to match up to the day to day horizons of their residents. None of those services are really provided by the counties at the moment, nor is there any obvious reason they might do so in future. So the case for a change basically comes down to wanting to fiddle about with maps.

Housing and transport aren't really governmental services. There are regional council of governments that coordinate programs and services to address needs that cross jurisdictional boundaries Texas Regional Councils (PDF) But those are more cooperative - associations for discussions, with perhaps some service to the county and city members - as opposed to the general public (GIS, office supplies, IT support).

The England doesn't really have the concept of local self-government since it was historically governed by the King, thus organization of sub-divisions may be viewed simply as reshuffling HM Bureaucracy.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I can't say I really care, given that I live several thousand miles away, have never visited west Texas and have no burning desire to do so.. But where a general reorganisation of administrative sub-divisions has been carried out in other nations in recent years, it's usually been because those sub-divisions provide major services (housing; transport; economic co-ordination etc.) to their residents and hence need to match up to the day to day horizons of their residents. None of those services are really provided by the counties at the moment, nor is there any obvious reason they might do so in future. So the case for a change basically comes down to wanting to fiddle about with maps.

Housing and transport aren't really governmental services. There are regional council of governments that coordinate programs and services to address needs that cross jurisdictional boundaries Texas Regional Councils (PDF) But those are more cooperative - associations for discussions, with perhaps some service to the county and city members - as opposed to the general public (GIS, office supplies, IT support).

The England doesn't really have the concept of local self-government since it was historically governed by the King, thus organization of sub-divisions may be viewed simply as reshuffling HM Bureaucracy.

Housing and transport may not be governmental services in Texas, but there are plenty of places in the world where housing and transport are provided/administered by local government.

Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur, but given that Texas counties were set up under the auspices of the state rather than on the independent say-so of the residents, I'm not even sure how that's meaningfully different.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Indeed, the established constitutional precedent since the 19th century is that local government in the United States is entirely the creation of, and exists entirely at the behest of, the states.

[Dr. MB]

Texas's counties are a mostly even grid for a lot of the state and merging them would really mess up that look. Plus I think more counties is usually better. It gives you more data to work with. The current map is mostly aesthetically pleasing, I don't see any reason to change it besides "lol rural hicks nobody lives there".

[jimrtex]

Indeed, the established constitutional precedent since the 19th century is that local government in the United States is entirely the creation of, and exists entirely at the behest of, the states.

Could you provide citations?

A state government and constitution itself is a creation of the People.

Texas Constitution, Article IX, Section 1(a) forbids detachment of any part of a county and attachment to another county without an affirmative vote of the voters of both counties.

[jimrtex]

I can't say I really care, given that I live several thousand miles away, have never visited west Texas and have no burning desire to do so.. But where a general reorganisation of administrative sub-divisions has been carried out in other nations in recent years, it's usually been because those sub-divisions provide major services (housing; transport; economic co-ordination etc.) to their residents and hence need to match up to the day to day horizons of their residents. None of those services are really provided by the counties at the moment, nor is there any obvious reason they might do so in future. So the case for a change basically comes down to wanting to fiddle about with maps.

Housing and transport aren't really governmental services. There are regional council of governments that coordinate programs and services to address needs that cross jurisdictional boundaries Texas Regional Councils (PDF) But those are more cooperative - associations for discussions, with perhaps some service to the county and city members - as opposed to the general public (GIS, office supplies, IT support).

The England doesn't really have the concept of local self-government since it was historically governed by the King, thus organization of sub-divisions may be viewed simply as reshuffling HM Bureaucracy.

Housing and transport may not be governmental services in Texas, but there are plenty of places in the world where housing and transport are provided/administered by local government.

Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur, but given that Texas counties were set up under the auspices of the state rather than on the independent say-so of the residents, I'm not even sure how that's meaningfully different.

You may misunderstand the concept of local self-government. It does not mean that the local government is sovereign, but rather than voters of a locality choose who governs themselves.

[Brittain33]

Indeed, the established constitutional precedent since the 19th century is that local government in the United States is entirely the creation of, and exists entirely at the behest of, the states.

Could you provide citations?

A state government and constitution itself is a creation of the People.

Texas Constitution, Article IX, Section 1(a) forbids detachment of any part of a county and attachment to another county without an affirmative vote of the voters of both counties.

Tenth Amendment, which specifically names the States as separate from the people. Remember that the original states preceded the U.S. Constitution.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I can't say I really care, given that I live several thousand miles away, have never visited west Texas and have no burning desire to do so.. But where a general reorganisation of administrative sub-divisions has been carried out in other nations in recent years, it's usually been because those sub-divisions provide major services (housing; transport; economic co-ordination etc.) to their residents and hence need to match up to the day to day horizons of their residents. None of those services are really provided by the counties at the moment, nor is there any obvious reason they might do so in future. So the case for a change basically comes down to wanting to fiddle about with maps.

Housing and transport aren't really governmental services. There are regional council of governments that coordinate programs and services to address needs that cross jurisdictional boundaries Texas Regional Councils (PDF) But those are more cooperative - associations for discussions, with perhaps some service to the county and city members - as opposed to the general public (GIS, office supplies, IT support).

The England doesn't really have the concept of local self-government since it was historically governed by the King, thus organization of sub-divisions may be viewed simply as reshuffling HM Bureaucracy.

Housing and transport may not be governmental services in Texas, but there are plenty of places in the world where housing and transport are provided/administered by local government.

Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur, but given that Texas counties were set up under the auspices of the state rather than on the independent say-so of the residents, I'm not even sure how that's meaningfully different.

You may misunderstand the concept of local self-government. It does not mean that the local government is sovereign, but rather than voters of a locality choose who governs themselves.

Which, given that Britain does not in fact have an absolute monarchy, would mean that your original statement was complete nonsense.

[jimrtex]

Indeed, the established constitutional precedent since the 19th century is that local government in the United States is entirely the creation of, and exists entirely at the behest of, the states.

Could you provide citations?

A state government and constitution itself is a creation of the People.

Texas Constitution, Article IX, Section 1(a) forbids detachment of any part of a county and attachment to another county without an affirmative vote of the voters of both counties.

Tenth Amendment, which specifically names the States as separate from the people. Remember that the original states preceded the U.S. Constitution.

Who created the States?

[jimrtex]

I can't say I really care, given that I live several thousand miles away, have never visited west Texas and have no burning desire to do so.. But where a general reorganisation of administrative sub-divisions has been carried out in other nations in recent years, it's usually been because those sub-divisions provide major services (housing; transport; economic co-ordination etc.) to their residents and hence need to match up to the day to day horizons of their residents. None of those services are really provided by the counties at the moment, nor is there any obvious reason they might do so in future. So the case for a change basically comes down to wanting to fiddle about with maps.

Housing and transport aren't really governmental services. There are regional council of governments that coordinate programs and services to address needs that cross jurisdictional boundaries Texas Regional Councils (PDF) But those are more cooperative - associations for discussions, with perhaps some service to the county and city members - as opposed to the general public (GIS, office supplies, IT support).

The England doesn't really have the concept of local self-government since it was historically governed by the King, thus organization of sub-divisions may be viewed simply as reshuffling HM Bureaucracy.

Housing and transport may not be governmental services in Texas, but there are plenty of places in the world where housing and transport are provided/administered by local government.

Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur, but given that Texas counties were set up under the auspices of the state rather than on the independent say-so of the residents, I'm not even sure how that's meaningfully different.

You may misunderstand the concept of local self-government. It does not mean that the local government is sovereign, but rather than voters of a locality choose who governs themselves.

Which, given that Britain does not in fact have an absolute monarchy, would mean that your original statement was complete nonsense.

At times, HM may on advice of Her ministers defer to the wishes of Her subjects in various localities.

[EastAnglianLefty]

That certainly answers my remaining questions about your knowledge of UK local government.