Be careful about what you wish for

Editor's note: Guest columnist Tom Huggard shares his views today on the idea of town-county consolidation. Regular Friday community columnist Dawn Klemann will return next week. 
For more than 200 years, Culpeper has had both an urban town and a rural, or agricultural, county.

For more than 200 years, there have been two governments responsible to these separate communities. And, yes, for more than 200 years, there have been arguments between the two governments.

Now, because some people feel that these two governments will never "work unless there is a change in the governmental structure," we are being asked to consider throwing away 200 years of history.

This is truly amazing rationale.

If one extended this rationale to a broader context, we would first of all get rid of all local governments, then we'd move on to getting rid of the commonwealth, then ultimately the U.S. government.

Yes, this is taking something to the extreme, but that is what this latest proposal to consolidate our town and county governments brings to my mind. 

 The answer to citizen dissatisfaction with their elected officials is the ballot box, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Should the citizens who are pushing this consolidation of governments proposal be successful in getting enough citizens to approve a petition for further action in this regard, then I wholeheartedly support all eligible citizens voting on this issue.
However, I urge my fellow citizens to know what they are voting for.

If you think a single government will be more efficient and less costly, think of our own General Assembly and even our federal government. Consolidation guarantees nothing.

Democracy and representative government have never been touted as efficient; just the opposite.

And there's a good reason why federal and state governments don't try to run all the governmental functions at the local level. They can't.

The further away from the people government is, the less responsive it is.

On some of the particular points of consolidation, some of us have real concern.

The Board of Supervisors is heavily dominated (five out of seven) by rural-oriented, elected officials. The reverse holds true for the Town Council, where all nine councilmembers are town-oriented.

In the county, the supervisors run, and are elected by, citizens in their individual districts, and therefore are beholden to, first of all the people in their district and then to the whole county. 
Conversely, the town's elected officials are all elected at-large, meaning that each councilperson is responsible to all of the citizens in the town all of the time - or they get unelected.
Town residents have long expected and demanded certain types and levels of service from their own government. These services are many and varied, and include: daily police operations, road maintenance, trash collection, water and sewer, electric, snow removal, etc.

The county, of which we town residents are also citizens, performs none of these functions and in fact spends the vast bulk of our tax dollars for two main services: schools and the Sheriff's Office.  Obviously, the governmental experiences of the two governments are hugely different. There is almost no overlap.

An argument for assuring that the town citizens would continue to receive the services they have been used to after a consolidation is to establish a special taxing district to provide and pay for these services.

Who would pay the taxes for the special taxing district if not the town residents themselves- And, if the town residents have to pay for these services, where is the "less costly" government for town residents- 

In addition, where town residents now control their tax burden through their own elected body, they would lose this control to someone else (the county) under the special taxing district concept.

Moreover, no one expects the non-town county residents to volunteer to pay for the garbage collection and snow removal in the town when they have to pay for such services to private companies over and above their own county taxes.

I regret that the longstanding debate between well-meaning officials over water and sewer has caused some folks to resurrect an idea which was not a good one before and is no different now. 

Some people have taken the argument over the details of the water line to the new high school as a means of stating that the town is opposed to providing water to the school.

The record is very clear that the Town Council has long supported supplying water to the school, and without cost to the county. The debate this year has really been about other water use issues.

My final point is similar to an earlier one. Just as the town's urban-oriented government has no experience in governing a mostly rural (though changing) agricultural community, the county likewise has no experience governing a mostly urban community. They should remain separate to do what they generally do best.

So, be careful what you ask for when supporting a consolidation of town and county governments. You just may get something much worse.

I'm sure this piece will generate debate, but I hope it is of the enlightening kind and not full of anger and invective

Tom Huggard is a former Culpeper town councilman. He is president of the Museum of Culpeper History board.