Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

You might regret that opinion one day. Local govt is quite literally small govt that you can participate in with a chance of actually having a say. It's all very well having a mad man at the helm of the good ship USofA. You may love or hate him but you can be sure he does not give a shit about your neck of the woods.

I gather that "Bumfuck XX" is the approved term for a region within XX state that is a bit out of the way and I heartily approve of that.

If you live in Bumfuck AQ (for example) you might have local issues that you might think are better served with a local rather than state or federal approach.

Some of your states are quite large. For example TX is nearly three times the land area of the UK which manages to cram three separate nations within its islands, one of which is minority shared with Ireland and the rest is even more complicated!

If you are happy with big govt then all is fine. That is what you'll get if you try to remove the old ... glue. Those old sub divisions are communities ie groups of people who are effectively the civic or regional version of families.

I suggest you strive to keep those webs of community together rather than try to tear them apart in the name of administrative efficiency or you will discover what bumfucked really means.

While you’re at it, why not disestablish the state and have everything federal?

There is value in local control - with some glaring exception.

States are sovereign entities and cannot be dissolved. Local governments are organs of the states and can be dissolved.

Local control is desirable, the question is the proper granularity of local control in the modern era. The structure of places like the Bay Area with dozens of little towns that have veto power over everything is too granular. Planning should happen at the granularity of entire metro areas.

That sounds too extreme. I like Australia where states (ok much less populated than US states!) have certain building powers esp. to build rail infra but local can manage planning rules pertaining to an area but within a state level framework.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have any unit of planning beneath the state. I’m saying they shouldn’t be incorporated entities that have the power to sue and be sued in their own separate from the state.

Should these sub-state entities be able to pass their own laws?

Some towns for example have laws against leaf blowers in a state where leaf blowers are unregulated. Some towns ban certain dog breeds.

No.

I live in Australia and local governments are too small and cause idiotic delays to things. They’re always being taken to administrative tribunals and losing and the state government periodically has to suspend their planning powers to make progress happen.

I liked the government structure of the ACT when I lived there with a territory government that also had all the local government responsibilities for bins etc.

It would take like two minutes to cross Atherton on a horse.

More like twelve minutes (unless you mean the short way across). But yeah, your point stands, lol.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com