cording to University of Louisville urbanrnpolicy professor Hank Savitch. He pointsrnout that suburban residents have arnpocketbook interest in the health ofrndowntown. His work has shown thatrnwhile there are wealthy suburbs surroundingrntroubled urban centers, in general,rn”suburbs do better when centralrncities do well. The areas that are inrndeepest trouble in America are areas thatrnhave seen their central cities go downrnthe chute.”rnRegardless of how one comes down onrnthis issue, much community feeling canrnbe salvaged if this debate is properly organized.rnThere was a perception in 1982rnand 1983 that the merger plans werern”being rammed down people’s throats,”rnsaid Sheryl G. Snyder, who served as legalrnadvisor to the merger charter commissionrnat the time and supportedrncity/eounty government reorganization.rnBusinessman Woodford Porter, Sr.,rnagreed. Though concerned about dilutedrnrepresentation for the West Endrn(Porter is black), he, too, was a mergerrnproponent in 1982. After the plan wasrndefeated that fall. Porter felt it shouldn’trnhave been immediately proposed againrnand so withdrew from the debate inrn1985. The plan failed both times, hernsaid, because “large portions of the communityrnfelt they didn’t have any input.”rnThis spring, a government reformrnsteering committee was named by therncounty judge, the mayor, the board of aldermenrnpresident, and a representativerncounty commissioner. This steeringrncommittee of 16 is nominating a fullrncommittee that will be empowered torndraft a better government proposal. Thernmayor and county judge have promisedrnthat the committee will be broad-basedrnand will have the authority to presentrnwhatever reform plan it determines isrnbest. Merger proponents and opponentsrnagree: if the committee does not havernthe freedom to draft its own plan, mergerrncannot be sold to the county and arnmerger referendum will fail. The committeernmay find that the best plan is notrna sweeping reorganization, but a gradual,rnde facto merger of certain services. Thisrnis ahead) happening. While the cityrnand county fire departments may neverrnbecome one (and probably shouldn’t),rnthe county departments as a group arernlooking at standardizing response times,rnpay scales, and benefits and are discussingrnjoint buying agreements that willrnsave them all money. The small citiesrnmay never willingly give up their ownrnpolice forces with their two-minute responserntimes, but some city and countyrnpolice units (among them CrimesrnAgainst Children and Metro Narcotics)rnhave been consolidated, apparcnth’ successfully,rnand there may be others to follow.rnThe city and county compact thatrnnow exists seems to be working, and JeffersonrnCounty may be well advised to renewrnit. The compact, passed in 1986 afterrnthe merger fights and subsequentrnannexation wars, did several things. Itrnresolved a major dispute betweenrnLouisville and the county over the distributionrnof occupational tax revenues.rnIt effectively froze all city boundaries,rnputting on hold the annexation disputes.rnIt also merged several city and countyrnagencies, among them the PlanningrnCommission and Economic Development.rnRenewing the compact before itrnexpires in 1998 will not be an easy job,rnbut it will certainly be easier than negotiatingrna merger of governments.rnLouisville alderman Tom Owen saidrnthat what he would like to see is mergerrnby default. “We’ve got a lot of mergedrnfunctions [already],” he said. Slowly,rnperhaps other services or departmentsrncould be consolidated (he did not sayrnwhich ones). This suggestion has manyrnadvantages. It spreads out the costs ofrnmerger over time. It leaves the smallrncities to govern their own local affairs, asrntheir residents want them to do, and it isrnnot controversial or divisive, which isrnwhat even a successful merger campaignrnwill be. Everyone I interviewed who wasrninvolved in the 1982 and 1983 reorganizationrnattempts agreed that it ended uprnbeing a bitter fight. The net effect wasrnto divide this community, rather thanrnto bring it together. It would be a pit tornsee that happen again.rnMerger of some services would notrngive Jefferson County the single executivernand pool of tax money some civicrnleaders want, and it would not solve allrnannexation disputes. But there is arnstrength in having several competingrnvoices, rather than one. The current debaternin Louisville over where to build arnnew bridge across the Ohio River is arncase in point. With a merged goernment,rnthe eastern county location probablyrnwould have been given the nod andrnMayor Abramson’s forceful argumentsrnfor a downtown location might neverrnhave been made.rnOf more concern than higher taxes,rnand even more than the threat of losingrnold communities such as Middletown,rna unified city and county governmentrncould become so monolithic that “onernvision” would overwhelm all others. Fortunately,rnas the failure of prior force-fedrnmerger attempts has shown, local feelingrnruns high throughout Jefferson County.rnThat means change here cannot comernwithout real consensus—which is all arnsmall “r” republican can ask for.rnKatherine Dalton is a freelance writer inrnLouisville.rnTHErnMARTINrnLUTHER KING, JR.,rnPLAGIARISM STORrnEdited bv THEODORE PAIM’.SrnA publication of The Rocktbrd f;rnInstitute. 107 pagesrn(paper). Only $10 (shipping andrnhandling charge included).rn• ^ ^ • ^ • ^ ^ • ^ i i i i ^ d i irnTO ORDER BY CREDIT CARD,rnCALL:rn1-800-383-0680rnOR SEND CHECK OR MONEYrnORDER (MADE PAYABLE TOrnTHE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE)rnTO:rnKING BOOK,rn934 NORTH MAIN STREET,rnROCKFORD, IL 61103rn(Discounts available forrnbulk orders.)rnNOVEMBER 1994/43rnrnrn