https://jocoreport.com/cleveland-considers-formation-of-parks-recreation-authority/ This is a well explained example of how we can provide for our own community better than anyone else. I encourage a good discussion on the subject, please be civil, you are speaking to your neighbors!
Thats why this is getting done. Who cares on parks when whomever is running the sports associations can rake in free money. At this point, why not incorporate fully? Thats 2 of 3 services needed (fire which is taxed being the other). Ill sell myself out as a consultant to setup the third (/joke)
Question: Would it be more effective in the long run to have a county-wide parks & rec (like most everyone else) that could unify and coordinate long-range goals and vision throughout the entire county? Rather than having another piece added to the piecemeal, patchwork in which each municipality/community plans for its own needs?
Unfortunately, JoCo doesn't seem interested in pursuing that route. I'm a fan of the limited government intrusion our county has in our lives but they take it a bit extreme sometimes. Wake county and several others have had long term growth plans in place since the 80's or earlier, it seems like our county's approach is to pretend growth isn't happening.
The JoCo GIS has a fire districts layer you can turn on. Oddly enough it is bigger than my 'incorporate Cleveland' map on a different thread.
Well said. It is also important to note that JoCo is a very large county with very different 'sides'. Very rural in the east and very suburban in the west. If you're talking taxation and where that money is spent, I think most people in Cleveland would want there money spent in Cleveland and those in eastern JoCo wouldn't want to contribute. The flip side is if everyone was taxed then it would be tremendously difficult to prioritize projects given the county's size and disparity from one side to the other.
From the way the article is worded, it seems like we would have taxation without representation. Who would decide how or where the money would be spent? It is not like we could vote out a city council if we don't like the way things are going. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
I don't feel like there was enough information provided. The article does state "Initially, a parks and recreation director will be needed, but we anticipate few additional administrative costs.” That position could be elected or appointed by elected officials, providing representation. At this point it I don't feel it's that important. If it's not addressed by the time it legislated and becomes a referendum then we can cry foul about representation and vote "NO".
The problem with that is still its a layer removed from the voters unless its a direct board managing P&R. Otherwise which body of elected officials is it? The county commissioners? They are for the whole county, not just the Cleveland area. Town of Clayton? They dont represent anyone in the area. I think theres going to be a whole another level of "administrative costs" that no ones thought of yet.
