<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:42 AM Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com" target="_blank">gdt@lexort.com</a><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> <span class="gmail_default">replied</span>:</span></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank">frederik@remote.org</a>> writes:<br>
> I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a<br>
> comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there<br>
> for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;)<br>
<br>
Agreed. Also, I think OSM has a defer-to-locals notion, and people far<br>
away changing things in CT/RI against the wishes of locals seems not ok.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Agreed. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">"Defer to Locals" is, or at least was, one of OSM's core values.</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">I am rather startled that respected, long-time OSM luminaries Frederik and SteveA were/are arguing <i>against</i> deference to locals and instead applying armchair political science. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">If Frederik is <i>only</i> commenting on <i>process</i>, and not supporting the old "consensus" itself, ok, yes, fixing a long accepted mistake should probably be discussed first, then fixed. <br>(OTOH, isn't the point of a Wiki that JFDI, it's easier to get forgiveness than permission?)<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
If the locals talk among themselves and do it themselves, that's<br>
something else. But so far it seesm everybody from New England (as well<br>
as our neighbors in NY) who has spoken up seems to be in favor of<br>
letting county boundaries stay regardless of how they fall on some<br>
strict definition of government.</blockquote></div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Agreed and agreed.<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">I've been holding my tongue on this since Greg (and others) nearby have been ably stating the New England common sense position, but it's time to give my support.</div></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">A manufactured armchair consensus, however long on a Wiki, may still be wrong on the ground.</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">In this case, I submit the "consensus" that 2-3 New England states had vacated their Counties is wrong for two reasons.</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(1) The US Census and rest of US Gov use the so-called "FIPS" Counties for /everything/. <br><br>If we the OSM are the Basemap to the World, not having Counties for CT and RI as the same admin_level=6 as all the other states very awkward for our downstream users.<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(<i>If we could standardize tags for <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FIPS">GNIS/FIPS</a> reference to FIPS/GNIS/Census/ANSI/INCITS place code standards, that would also be nice for downstream users of the basemap, but admin_level consistency is a good start</i>.)<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(2) What is a County is a matter for the local politicians; and it is a matter of law. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Administrative Boundaries can and do exist in law without a Government if the relevant law, bylaws, etc say so.</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(My Ward and Precinct do not have elective officers nor staff of government, but are accepted as admin_level=9 and 10 respectively; likewise Neighborhood admin_level=10, Unincorporated community admin_level=8 need not have officers nor staff.)<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">So Disestablishment of Government does not disestablish the County unless the act of disestablishment says so.<br><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">TL;DR : <br><b>Connecticut State Government </b>(<a href="http://ct.gov">ct.gov</a>) says they still have Counties as an "<i>Administrative Boundary</i>" and as an "<i>Official Political Boundary</i>," they just have no County <i>Government</i>. <br>In other words, the county <i>government,</i> the separate political tax-and-spend entity composed of a more-or-less unitary elective, appointive, and civil service hierarchy was abolished, and functions divided among the several state Executive departments and Judicial branch to be organized as seemed useful to each; but not the <u>County</u> <i>per se</i>, which continues.<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">[These assertions are documented below the /sig. ]<br><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">The tag under debate is Admin(istrative) Level, not Government; and Connecticut says their Counties are still the former, but not the latter. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><i>If Connecticut says so, who are we, the OSM armchair mappers, to disagree</i>?<br></div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(RI is the same.)</div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> <i>// Bill in Boston, nerd of New England History, geographical and otherwise</i></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> = = = = = = = <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><b><br></b></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><b>APPENDIX ... LOOKING IN THE HORSE'S MOUTH ...<br></b></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Let's go to <a href="http://CT.GOV">CT.GOV</a> and see what Connecticut says about themselves officially.<br><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><b>(1) Public dissemination</b>. Topically current, the CT Governor (and presumably thus their Dept of Public Health or whatever they call it) is <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2020/05-2020/Governor-Lamont-Coronavirus-Update-May-12">using County rollups for COVID-19 reporting</a>. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">So Counties are still important in Connecticut polity in 2020, well into the 21st Century, 60 years after the county <i>governments</i> were dissolved, communicating to voters most of whom were born in a governmentless county.<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><b>(2) Law</b>. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">CT Secretary of State's website, in the official "<b style="box-sizing:inherit;line-height:inherit;font-weight:700;color:rgb(10,10,10);font-family:open-sans,"Open Sans","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Roboto,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:center;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(254,254,254);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Connecticut State Register and Manual</b>":<br><span style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif"><font size="1"><a href="https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VII/Population-of-Connecticut-by-Counties" target="_blank">https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VII/Population-of-Connecticut-by-Counties</a></font></span><br><div style="margin-left:40px"><span style="font-family:monospace">POPULATION OF CONNECTICUT BY COUNTIES<br>County 2010 2017 est. <br>Fairfield 916,829 949,921<br>Hartford 894,014 895,388<br>Litchfield 189,927 182,177<br>Middlesex 165,676 163,410<br>New Haven 862,477 860,435<br>New London 274,055 269,033<br>Tolland 152,691 151,461<br>Windham 118,428 116,359<br>Total for the State 3,574,097 3,588,184<br></span></div>Further, <font size="1"><span style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif"><a href="https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VI/Counties---Table-of-Contents" target="_blank">https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VI/Counties---Table-of-Contents</a></span></font><br><div style="margin-left:40px"><span style="font-family:monospace">Composition of Counties</span><br><span style="font-family:monospace">__________</span><br><span style="font-family:monospace"></span><span style="font-family:monospace">THERE ARE NO COUNTY SEATS IN CONNECTICUT</span><br><span style="font-family:monospace"></span><span style="font-family:monospace">County government was abolished effective October 1, 1960; counties continue only as geographical subdivisions.</span><br></div>and proceeds to give date Constituted for each County, and lists the State Marshalls (deputy sheriff renamed, per Chap.78 of statutes) in each county, and then gives tables of the Towns and Cities in each County as the "Composition of Counties".<br><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">So Connecticut's <u>official state reference document</u> above says they have no County Seats, no County Government (a local elective tax & spend authority), but shows they do still have Counties.<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br>Connecticut statutes Chapter 76 still define the Counties <i>per se</i>, <span style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif"><font size="1"><a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_076.htm" target="_blank">https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_076.htm</a></font></span><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">while showing as <i>repealed</i> various former specific functions of the county; the county <i>itself</i> is not repealed.</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><b><br></b></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><b>(3) State GIS assets and similar.</b><br><br>CT.gov uses the County Outline Map as a Reference layer for <a href="https://data.ct.gov/Government/Regional-Councils-of-Government-and-Counties/qppk-fmwh" target="_blank">displaying Regional Planning Councils</a> map, which implies they think one's County is still relevant to Conn. residents finding their town when looking up their cognizant RPC/RPO. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">CT Judicial Branch has its own two index maps which diverge from both Counties and RPOs. ( <a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/maps/JD/Default.htm" target="_blank">Judicial Districts</a>, which have court administrations and State Prosecutors, replaced Counties for judicial purposes. They also have numbered (not named) <a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/maps/GA/Default.htm" target="_blank">Geographical Areas defined by the Judicial Branch </a>that are mostly sub-sections of counties but occasionally metro area based, crossing historic county lines, at which point they also cross Regional Council lines, for purposes I haven't fathomed, possibly for parole and similar quasi-judicial services?)</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/ChooseCT/Regions" target="_blank">Connecticut Regions</a> (business outreach) uses the 8 historic county names as the <i>de facto</i> "regions" for attracting new business investment, not RPOs or SMSAs or Business Round Table Districts or ... . <br><br>GIS Downloands. CT State DEEP (Energy & Environment) GIS department includes <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/gis/resources/IndexCountyBpdf.pdf">County</a> and <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/gis/resources/IndexCountyTLpdf.pdf">Towns in County</a> among their <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/GIS-and-Maps/Resources/Index-Maps">top level Index maps</a>, on par with <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/gis/resources/IndexPlanOrgpdf.pdf">Regional Planning Organization</a> . <br>However, under "<font size="1"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><b>Connecticut and Vicinity State and Municipal Boundaries</b></span></font>", <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/GIS-and-Maps/Data/GIS-DATA#BaseMap">CT DEEP GIS Basemap downloads</a> includes <u>County Boundary Lines</u> in multiple Line and Poly SHP downloads, but does NOT include RPO/RPC boundaries under that heading. Seems like CT's lead GIS agency believes Counties are what belong on a Map of political entitites still. (Conn. don't have consolidated GIS yet, but working towards; DEEP GIS seems to be the home of the techies and central reusable resources; see next.)</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">The CT "Geospatial Information Systems (GIS) Council" is the strategic alliance of producers and consumers of GIS in Conn Govt, in lieu of a consolidated GIS department. Their <a href="https://www.ct.gov/gis/lib/gis/ct_geographic_framework_data_-_1-3-11.pdf">Geographic Framework Data strategy</a> [2006/2011] specifically calls <u>County</u> an "<u>Administrative Boundary</u>" in (p.19, excerpted below) ; conversely RPO is listed as a <i>Thematic</i> basemap (p.12) but <i>not</i> named as an "Administrative Boundary" (emphasis on <i>county</i> supplied):</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="margin-left:40px"><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><b><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Cadastral Information Continued...</span> / Relationship to
Other Base Map
Themes /<br>Administrative Boundaries</b>: State, town, borough, <b>county</b> and other<br>administrative boundaries should be coincident with parcel boundaries.<br>Currently, there are significant discrepancies between existing town boundary<br>datasets and parcel boundary datasets. There are even neighboring town parcel<br>datasets with as much as 500 foot overlaps or gaps at the two towns’ boundary. It<br>is very important that the administrative boundaries, especially the state and town<br>boundaries be as accurate as possible. </span></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">If Chap 76 and the above excerpt don't quite settle the question that CT State Government still considers the County as an Administrative Boundary (even though there is no separately elected taxing and spending authority <i>qua</i> "county government"), their <a href="https://www.ct.gov/gis/lib/gis/StateOfCT_Strategic_Plan_final_10_04_2007.pdf">GIS Council Strategic Plan</a> (2007; p. 24, sec. 5.2.1) goes further (bold emphasis supplied)<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="margin-left:40px"><u>Administrative and Political Boundaries</u><br>This data category consists of the following types of boundaries: <b>Official Political<br>Boundaries</b> <b>(</b>State, Municipality, <b>County</b>, Congressional Districts, Voting Districts,<br>Borough and Independent Cities<b>)</b>, State/Municipal Administrative and Analytic<br>Boundaries, Census/Demographic and Planning Boundaries and Property Boundaries<br>(federal, state, municipal, and privately owned properties). Data in this category are<br>owned by the State Legislature and maintained by various agencies. <br></div></blockquote></div><br>to confirm that County is not only still an "Administrative Boundary" but also still an "<u>Official Political Boundary</u>" in Connecticut. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">What more could we (OSM) want in a County? <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> We don't record boundaries of regional layered sales tax on bottle stores, or prosecutorial districts, or regional sewer and water commission, or transit authority service areas, or Sheriffs' bailiwicks. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"> We record <u>official, political administrative boundaries,</u> and Connecticut official state documents say Connecticut Counties are <i>exactly</i> (<i>and only</i>) official, political administrative boundaries.</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">⏹ QED.<br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">(CT GISC <i>do</i> acknowledge (p.42 of Strategic Plan above) in the <i>real politik</i> of a lack of county central GIS staffs, since no county government, that the state GIS Council liaison function <i>must</i> use the several RPO GIS leads/representatives as consolidator-proxies of municipal GIS inputs from the smaller municipalities, and GISC will liaise directly only with RPO GIS and major muni GIS - as otherwise, municipal liaison would be a full-time State staff position, which (implicitly) a <i>Council</i> doesn't have, at least until there is an official central GIS agency with responsibility and <i>budget</i> for the liaison activity.)<br></div><br><div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default"></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">CODACIL - RHODE ISLAND<br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">The situation in RI is the same as Connecticut - the state is still <a href="http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE42/42-3/INDEX.HTM">lawfully <i>divided</i> into Counties</a>, but there is no <i>government</i> at County. <br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">In fact, RI Counties are slightly <i>more</i> real than Conn Counties; RI Counties <a href="http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE42/42-3/42-3-1.HTM">still have County Towns</a>. (What Mass. and Olde England called Shire Towns. Conn Judicial Districts' Court Towns are the same thing under a new name.)<br></div></div><br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">CODACIL - MASSACHUSETTS</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">Not only do counties still exist and a few County governments still exist (including two unified town=county), some Elective offices still exist at County level even in some counties whose <i>Governments</i> were abolished; although some offices have since been reorganized,* and some are now I think may be appointive?<br><div style="font-family:georgia,serif;margin-left:40px" class="gmail_default">*(<i>E.g., some District Attorney districts are no longer County aligned but rationalized - unwinding the gerrymander as it were, drawing lines based on where population is now not 200 years ago.</i>)<br></div><br></div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">E.g., Although Suffolk Co is one of the disestablished county governments, I still vote for Suffolk County District Attorney, Suffolk County Registrar of Deeds, and Suffolk County Sheriff. (Alas the MassGIS cadastral expert, a friend of OSM Mass., did not win his bid for Suffolk Registrar of Deeds; there was another wonkish candidate, so the machine patronage guy who needed a dayjob slipped through. Probably just as well, he's more help to OSM at MassGIS :-D, but I thought he'd reform what needed reform at Reg. Good luck to the 3 smaller non-Boston municipalities in Suffolk ever electing anyone to a Suffolk office. :-D.)<br>My State Senate and State House reps' districts are enumerated within Suffolk Co.</div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">I do my Jury Duty in Suffolk Superior court (usually; can also be Boston District etc, but Suffolk Superior is the big user of Jurors). </div><div style="font-family:georgia,serif" class="gmail_default">I don't recall ever paying a separate Suffolk Co tax; IIRC budgets were set by State Legislature, which may be how Counties fell bankrupt. Our Sheriff already wasn't seen outside of court/jail unless a deputy was working overtime at a road construction site with the County car, so there wasn't much if any change visible to Suffolk Co residents when the county government was disestablished, maybe one less patronage slot on the ballot in November for whatever the useless county government organ was. More change was seen in outlying counties that lacked for City services, where State had to take over County hospital, rural policing, highways, administration of County Jail. <br>(At this point, I think all the Circuit and Superior Courts are State run, even in the counties that still have County Government. The Ch.J. of the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court runs the budget for the whole system.)<br></div><br></div></div>