3 ms·

> One major downside not mentioned is that corruption at scale becomes easier. I don’t think this is the case. Corruption seems to be far easier at smaller sca

> One major downside not mentioned is that corruption at scale becomes easier. I don’t think this is the case. Corruption seems to be far easier at smaller scales where there is insufficient scrutiny of the people running departments. Larger cities may at least be able to support a few reporters looking into local government business. But I think the way government is organised makes a huge difference too. California seems to break things down into little fiefs of control which seems resistant to real scrutiny.

vlovich123 3y ago
Reporters are not so good at investigating corruption where you just choose to allocate resources between priorities differently or neglect some issue. Then it’s a “both” sides thing. Certain kinds of corruption are easier at smaller scales, other kinds of corruption (potentially worse) happen at larger scales (think about the kind of money that goes into federal politics). I don’t think journalism would do a better job with a single Bay Area government vs reporters in each individual city as now. It is all trade offs, but I think there are better structural solutions that don’t create a quasi government covering the a good chunk of the Bay.
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  Right now we already have a patchwork of ad-hoc, incomplete metro level quasi government bodies in the Bay Area, the big ones being BART and the various other transport agencies. London reinstated metro level governance 20 years ago and transport is the bulk of its responsibility. It's hard to imagine improvements like the congestion charge and low emissions zone moving forward without that democratic mandate.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Yeah. So have the state unify it all into a single transit authority. That doesn’t convince me about unifying all facets of government. For example, one thing called out is policing. But the claimed problem of interop between departments feels superficial. It’s not like communication is prohibited and you’d still have jurisdictional precinct issues. The problems with policing are intrinsic with how it’s set up structurally in terms of unions, insurance, enforcement of rules within police etc. that doesn’t get better when you amalgamate. Indeed, Toronto’s police famously turned out to have an agreement after amalgamation (iirc) that they struck with gangs to avoid enforcement / prosecution as long as violence was kept in check. When that kind of stuff happens, it’s impact is much narrower when you have independently run departments.
    - laurencerowe 3y ago
      It's possible to have multiple levels. Most places in California have both City and County levels of government. San Francisco is weird in that it is a combined City and County. The logical outcome would seemingly be to have one metropolitan county covering the whole Bay Area with responsibility for transport and other shared concerns then have the various cities (which are effectively boroughs) underneath that. Who knows, maybe they could organise integrated fares across the patchwork of different transport systems!

vlovich123 3y ago

Reporters are not so good at investigating corruption where you just choose to allocate resources between priorities differently or neglect some issue. Then it’s a “both” sides thing. Certain kinds of corruption are easier at smaller scales, other kinds of corruption (potentially worse) happen at larger scales (think about the kind of money that goes into federal politics). I don’t think journalism would do a better job with a single Bay Area government vs reporters in each individual city as now. It is all trade offs, but I think there are better structural solutions that don’t create a quasi government covering the a good chunk of the Bay.

laurencerowe 3y ago
Right now we already have a patchwork of ad-hoc, incomplete metro level quasi government bodies in the Bay Area, the big ones being BART and the various other transport agencies. London reinstated metro level governance 20 years ago and transport is the bulk of its responsibility. It's hard to imagine improvements like the congestion charge and low emissions zone moving forward without that democratic mandate.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Yeah. So have the state unify it all into a single transit authority. That doesn’t convince me about unifying all facets of government. For example, one thing called out is policing. But the claimed problem of interop between departments feels superficial. It’s not like communication is prohibited and you’d still have jurisdictional precinct issues. The problems with policing are intrinsic with how it’s set up structurally in terms of unions, insurance, enforcement of rules within police etc. that doesn’t get better when you amalgamate. Indeed, Toronto’s police famously turned out to have an agreement after amalgamation (iirc) that they struck with gangs to avoid enforcement / prosecution as long as violence was kept in check. When that kind of stuff happens, it’s impact is much narrower when you have independently run departments.
  - laurencerowe 3y ago
    It's possible to have multiple levels. Most places in California have both City and County levels of government. San Francisco is weird in that it is a combined City and County. The logical outcome would seemingly be to have one metropolitan county covering the whole Bay Area with responsibility for transport and other shared concerns then have the various cities (which are effectively boroughs) underneath that. Who knows, maybe they could organise integrated fares across the patchwork of different transport systems!