Representative Doug Dubitsky: Tread Carefully on Embracing Regionalization

I caution my colleagues to tread very carefully on the issue of “regionalization.” Although voluntary inter-municipal agreements can generate significant savings, forced consolidation of services and “sharing” of tax bases to “improve the health of the cities” can also be the prelude to sucking more money out of rural areas and giving it to urban areas. The recent car tax change was specifically and intentionally designed to transfer money from the small towns to the big cities.

When considering any type of regionalization, we must remember that cities tax and spend for things like public transportation, public utilities, full-time police protection, paid firefighters and amenities from which small towns will never benefit. Regionalization should not be used to compel small towns to pay for those city services. Similarly, residents of rural areas typically spend heavily on driving to work, school and even the grocery store – an expense city-dwellers don’t typically pay. These disparate costs and services must be factored in when calculating how any regionalized taxes would be levied and spent.

Also, with regionalization comes the loss of local control over certain aspects of municipal governance. Do you want a regional government compelling your town to change its zoning priorities to mollify people who don’t live in town? Do we want the cities (which would likely have disproportionate power in any regional decision-making body) to decide how and where children in the small towns are educated?

“Regionalization” is not necessarily an evil in and of itself.  However, without careful deliberation by our municipal leaders on each and every aspect of any regional agreement, the small rural towns of Eastern Connecticut will almost certainly lose autonomy, influence and of course, money. The devil, as is often the case, would be in the details.