[Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:42 AM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> replied:

Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> writes:
> > I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a
> > comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there
> > for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;)
>
> Agreed.  Also, I think OSM has a defer-to-locals notion, and people far
> away changing things in CT/RI against the wishes of locals seems not ok.
>

Agreed.

"Defer to Locals" is, or at least was, one of OSM's core values.

I am rather startled that respected, long-time OSM luminaries Frederik and
SteveA were/are arguing *against* deference to locals and instead applying
armchair political science.

If Frederik is *only* commenting on *process*, and not supporting the old
"consensus" itself, ok, yes, fixing a long accepted mistake should probably
be discussed first, then fixed.
(OTOH, isn't the point of a Wiki that JFDI, it's easier to get forgiveness
than permission?)


If the locals talk among themselves and do it themselves, that's
> something else.  But so far it seesm everybody from New England (as well
> as our neighbors in NY) who has spoken up seems to be in favor of
> letting county boundaries stay regardless of how they fall on some
> strict definition of government.


Agreed and agreed.

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.

A manufactured armchair consensus, however long on a Wiki, may still be
wrong on the ground.

In this case, I submit the "consensus" that 2-3 New England states had
vacated their Counties is wrong for two reasons.

(1) The US Census and rest of US Gov use the so-called "FIPS" Counties for
/everything/.

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.

(*If we could standardize tags for GNIS/FIPS
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FIPS> 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*.)

(2) What is a County is a matter for the local politicians; and it is a
matter of law.

Administrative Boundaries can and do exist in law without a Government if
the relevant law, bylaws, etc say so.

(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.)

So Disestablishment of Government does not disestablish the County unless
the act of disestablishment says so.

TL;DR :
*Connecticut State Government *(ct.gov) says they still have Counties as an
"*Administrative Boundary*" and as an "*Official Political Boundary*," they
just have no County *Government*.
In other words, the county *government,* 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 *County* *per se*,
which continues.
[These assertions are documented below the /sig. ]

The tag under debate is Admin(istrative) Level, not Government; and
Connecticut says their Counties are  still the former, but not the latter.
*If Connecticut says so, who are we, the OSM armchair mappers, to disagree*?

(RI is the same.)


  *// Bill in Boston, nerd of New England History, geographical and
otherwise*
  = = = = = = =


*APPENDIX ... LOOKING IN THE HORSE'S MOUTH ...*

Let's go to CT.GOV and see what Connecticut says about themselves
officially.

*(1) Public dissemination*. Topically current, the CT Governor (and
presumably thus their Dept of Public Health or whatever they call it) is using
County rollups for COVID-19 reporting
<https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2020/05-2020/Governor-Lamont-Coronavirus-Update-May-12>.


So Counties are still important in Connecticut polity in 2020, well into
the 21st Century, 60 years after the county *governments* were dissolved,
communicating to voters most of whom were born in a governmentless county.

*(2) Law*.

CT Secretary of State's website, in the official "*Connecticut State
Register and Manual*":
https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VII/Population-of-Connecticut-by-Counties
POPULATION OF CONNECTICUT BY COUNTIES
County 2010 2017 est.
Fairfield 916,829 949,921
Hartford 894,014 895,388
Litchfield 189,927 182,177
Middlesex 165,676 163,410
New Haven 862,477 860,435
New London 274,055 269,033
Tolland 152,691 151,461
Windham 118,428 116,359
Total for the State 3,574,097 3,588,184
Further,
https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VI/Counties---Table-of-Contents
Composition of Counties
__________
THERE ARE NO COUNTY SEATS IN CONNECTICUT
County government was abolished effective October 1, 1960; counties
continue only as geographical subdivisions.
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".

So Connecticut's *official state reference document* above says they have
no County Seats, no County Government (a local elective tax & spend
authority), but shows they do still have Counties.

Connecticut statutes Chapter 76 still define the Counties *per se*,
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_076.htm
while showing as *repealed* various former specific functions of the
county; the county *itself* is not repealed.

*(3) State GIS assets and similar.*

CT.gov uses the County Outline Map as a Reference layer for displaying
Regional Planning Councils
<https://data.ct.gov/Government/Regional-Councils-of-Government-and-Counties/qppk-fmwh>
map, which implies they think one's County  is still relevant to Conn.
residents finding their town when looking up their cognizant RPC/RPO.

CT Judicial Branch has its own two index maps which diverge from both
Counties and RPOs. ( Judicial Districts
<https://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/maps/JD/Default.htm>, which have court
administrations and State Prosecutors, replaced Counties for judicial
purposes. They also have numbered (not named) Geographical Areas defined by
the Judicial Branch <https://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/maps/GA/Default.htm>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?)

Connecticut Regions <https://portal.ct.gov/ChooseCT/Regions> (business
outreach) uses the 8 historic county names as the *de facto* "regions" for
attracting new business investment, not RPOs or SMSAs or Business Round
Table Districts or ... .

GIS Downloands.  CT State DEEP (Energy & Environment) GIS department
includes County
<https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/gis/resources/IndexCountyBpdf.pdf>
and Towns
in County
<https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/gis/resources/IndexCountyTLpdf.pdf>
among their top level Index maps
<https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/GIS-and-Maps/Resources/Index-Maps>, on par
with Regional
Planning Organization
<https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/deep/gis/resources/IndexPlanOrgpdf.pdf> .
However,  under "*Connecticut and Vicinity State and Municipal Boundaries*",
CT DEEP GIS Basemap downloads
<https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/GIS-and-Maps/Data/GIS-DATA#BaseMap>
includes *County
Boundary Lines* 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.)

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 Geographic Framework Data strategy
<https://www.ct.gov/gis/lib/gis/ct_geographic_framework_data_-_1-3-11.pdf>
[2006/2011] specifically calls *County* an "*Administrative Boundary*" in
(p.19, excerpted below) ; conversely RPO is listed as a *Thematic* basemap
(p.12) but *not* named as an "Administrative Boundary" (emphasis on *county*
supplied):


> *Cadastral Information Continued... / Relationship to Other Base Map
> Themes  /Administrative Boundaries*: State, town, borough, *county* and
> other
> administrative boundaries should be coincident with parcel boundaries.
> Currently, there are significant discrepancies between existing town
> boundary
> datasets and parcel boundary datasets. There are even neighboring town
> parcel
> datasets with as much as 500 foot overlaps or gaps at the two towns’
> boundary. It
> is very important that the administrative boundaries, especially the state
> and town
> boundaries be as accurate as possible.
>

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
*qua* "county government"), their GIS Council Strategic Plan
<https://www.ct.gov/gis/lib/gis/StateOfCT_Strategic_Plan_final_10_04_2007.pdf>
(2007; p. 24, sec. 5.2.1) goes further  (bold emphasis supplied)

*Administrative and Political Boundaries*
> This data category consists of the following types of boundaries:
> *Official PoliticalBoundaries* *(*State, Municipality, *County*,
> Congressional Districts, Voting Districts,
> Borough and Independent Cities*)*, State/Municipal Administrative and
> Analytic
> Boundaries, Census/Demographic and Planning Boundaries and Property
> Boundaries
> (federal, state, municipal, and privately owned properties). Data in this
> category are
> owned by the State Legislature and maintained by various agencies.
>

to confirm that County is not only still an "Administrative Boundary" but
also still an "*Official Political Boundary*" in Connecticut.

What more could we (OSM) want in a County?
    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.
   We record *official, political administrative boundaries,* and
Connecticut official state documents say Connecticut Counties are *exactly*
(*and only*) official, political administrative boundaries.

⏹ QED.

(CT GISC *do* acknowledge (p.42 of Strategic Plan above) in the *real
politik* of a lack of county central GIS staffs, since no county
government, that the state GIS Council liaison function *must* 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 *Council*
doesn't have, at least until there is an official central GIS agency with
responsibility and *budget* for the liaison activity.)

CODACIL -  RHODE ISLAND
The situation in RI is the same as Connecticut - the state is still lawfully
*divided* into Counties
<http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE42/42-3/INDEX.HTM>, but
there is no *government* at County.
In fact, RI Counties are slightly *more* real than Conn Counties; RI
Counties still have County Towns
<http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE42/42-3/42-3-1.HTM>.
(What Mass. and Olde England called Shire Towns. Conn Judicial Districts'
Court Towns are the same thing under a new name.)

CODACIL -  MASSACHUSETTS
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 *Governments* were abolished;
although some offices have since been reorganized,* and some are now I
think may be appointive?
*(*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.*)

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.)
My State Senate and State House reps' districts are enumerated within
Suffolk Co.
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).
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.
(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.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200602/75487ff5/attachment-0001.htm>