Town Today Gone Tommorrow

Wisconsin’s Alliance of Cities has proposed legislation that would disband all of Wisconsin’s towns. Representatives from the Alliance of Cities are motioning to dissolve every town government in the state and have the town’s respective counties and neighboring cities to pick up the slack left by the void. This supposed solution to state budget shortfalls seems very nearsighted and fails to take into consideration the third of Wisconsin residents who live within small towns, active citizens such as Donna Reichenbach. A move to consolidate small community’s governments would make the services these governments already receive slow and inefficient. The governmental str

Towns are the only governments left that have direct democracy. When a citizen of a town attends a town meeting and voices their opinion successfully, he or she can see the affect of their opinion. Even voicing one’s opinion even at the county level fails to elicit change. One great incentive to living in a town in Wisconsin is that taxpayers get to vote on their own property tax rate. Towns are the perfect example of direct democracy with active residents making important decisions and working through problems and issues as a community.

As stated before, there is a push from large cities to eliminate town governments. Alliance of Cities spokesman Rich Eggleston said, “It turns out local government works a lot better in states without towns.” Numerous city officials feel that towns are only holding areas for land destined for future city expansion and have no real governing powers. This stems from the fact that upon need, cities and villages have the power to annex town land. Towns have little legal influence under state law. Some towns in southeastern Wisconsin have tried, and failed. City officials also claim that the main reason towns are so efficient is because they receive services from counties, cities and villages.

Beside the financial end of issue, there is a concern for the lifestyle of a town resident. Towns are more than government; they are also representational of the way the people live. The people who live in towns are enjoying their larger lots, privilege and privacy. People choose to live in towns for various reasons, but to take their choice and make it obsolete is unfair and an abuse of democracy.

Towns have a great deal of personality and distinctive traits that make each of them unique, especially set apart from cities. These general purpose governments are important to the people that inhabit them. Many town people have given years of service to their small community through volunteering and serving as a public official. People who argue to eliminate towns are basically looking for a way to tighten state spending, and people who are satisfied with the way things are going are simply defending a way of life and an efficient system. There is some common ground on this issue and down the road officials will have to make some definitive choices.

There are many facets of this argument that one making a decision on the existence of towns really must take into consideration. The removal of state wide government systems such as the town structure could not easily be changed back if the new system were to fail. More than likely, the state would not reinstate towns upon failure; i

Some topics in this essay:
Town Association, According Stadelman, Donna Reichenbach, Fire Department, Rich Eggleston, Alliance Cities, Merillan Wisconsin, Mae Reichenbach, Association Stadelman, citizens towns, basic services, town board, Richard Stadelman, alliance cities, cities villages, live towns, town governments, budget shortfalls, citizen town, people live,