Why does NJ have counties?

The "county" level of government feels a bit redundant to me. Given that all land falls within the boundaries of municipal governments (ie everyone lives ina a city, borough, township, etc -- there's no land just out in "county" land as you find in western states), and that we're a pretty small, geographically cohesive state, it seems like a lot of what the counties do could be devolved down the the municipalities or brought up to the state level.

One counter-argument might be a local government one - having a level of decision making that's still more local than the state, but more regional than an individual municipality - but it seems like this could be addressed simply by upping the number of state legislative districts, and drawing them so that they more closely follow community borders - eg, make sure each district is ~ 50k people or so, +/- a margin to allow for keeping an entire municipality within a district. So natural clusterings of communities would still get a cohesive voice in regional issues, via their state representatives.

I think you'd get more efficient government this way. I don't know that you'd get lower taxes - I'd rather see any savings here go toward better services - but I think better functioning, more direct and efficient governance would be a win.

Counties served a purpose, back when it took 3 days to travel from NYC to Philly.  Today there is no logical argument for retaining the county level of government.  

However, since it provides salaries for politicians, they will never consolidate services up (to State) or down (to municipalities) as appropriate.

So Joe D. can plant trees

I would love to start by consolidating counties.  Maybe 5 instead of 21. I'd also like to eliminate every 4th municipality.

FilmCarp said:

I would love to start by consolidating counties.  Maybe 5 instead of 21. I'd also like to eliminate every 4th municipality.

Never happen.

I can't see a "rich" county willing to be merged with a "poor" county.

Just pay off the executives.  That usually works.  Also, counties can be divided into sections and absorbed by  bordering ones.  It's an uphill struggle that my father fought unsuccessfully in the 1960's, so I hear you, but we have to try something.

BG9 said:

FilmCarp said:

I would love to start by consolidating counties.  Maybe 5 instead of 21. I'd also like to eliminate every 4th municipality.

Never happen.

I can't see a "rich" county willing to be merged with a "poor" county.

Like Morris County would just love to merge with Essex.  LOL!

FilmCarp said:

Just pay off the executives.  That usually works.  Also, counties can be divided into sections and absorbed by  bordering ones.  It's an uphill struggle that my father fought unsuccessfully in the 1960's, so I hear you, but we have to try something.

Lot of executives to pay off. Not just the county executive.

I can't see a county sheriff or clerk or county board agreeing. Any elected county official. Plus all those appointed job holders such as head of DPW, etc. 

The typical county sheriff or clerk would respond "merge my county and possibly lose my job? No way." 

Never happen.

FilmCarp said:

I would love to start by consolidating counties.  Maybe 5 instead of 21. I'd also like to eliminate every 4th municipality.

Still too much of a halfway measure for me. It's not the number of counties that bother me, but the fact that they exist, adding a layer of obfuscation and inefficiency to our government.  I don't know that larger, but fewer, counties really fixes that.

Massachusetts abolished 3/4 of county governments 20 years ago. Nobody seemed to notice.

I believe both Massachusetts and Connecticut have abolished County government.  All executive governmental functions are carried out by either municipalities (or by compacts between or among municipalities) or by the two states.  It's possible, however, that the districts that courts serve are still drawn along the former county lines.

Some of the county functions made sense in the days before easy electronic communication.

These days you could move the constitutional officers in the counties to the state and suffer few changes.

The Registrar of Deeds and Mortgages is probably now a state function, and 90% electronic.

The Surrogate and the Sheriff should be under the state's direction and control.

Would it not be even more efficient to retain the counties and disolve the towns?

max_weisenfeld said:

Would it not be even more efficient to retain the counties and disolve the towns?

Of course it would.

But cities should not be included in the merger. They should be retained as municipalities like NYC is a municipality that is spread over several counties. Cities have their own special needs.

County government definitely needs reform.  Part of the problem is that most of us don't pay attention to who we elect.  Why does Joseph DiVincenzo get re-elected term after term when all he does is find more ways to spend our money to put his name on things?  He's been in office since 2003.

Every fall I have my students research county government.  There are some useful aspects.  For example, the county police have specialized units (K9, Domestic abuse, etc.) that most municipalities cannot afford and do not need on a daily basis.

Then there are the overpaid and under monitored county freeholders.  See http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/how_much_your_county_freeholders_others_in_nj_earn.html#26
I teach in Summit and members of the Board of Education have repeatedly stated that a key reason for our shrinking school budget is that they need to counteract the ever-increasing Union County taxes.

Taxpayers of the counties unite!  

max_weisenfeld said:

Would it not be even more efficient to retain the counties and disolve the towns?

My thought exactly! However, I can't see most municipalities wanting to give up their autonomy/home rule.

max_weisenfeld said:

Would it not be even more efficient to retain the counties and disolve the towns?

I thought about that too, but I think it's the counties, not the towns, that are redundant. The flip side of efficiency is that responsiveness to local input is also a goal. A town-level government answers to a small enough number of people that it can be responsive to local input. You do lose some efficiency there, but efficiency in and of itself isn't the only goal - it's efficiency in the service of actually serving the needs and desires of the people governed. A town-level government serves a purpose here (though I think we should encourage towns to share more services - even if the elected officials are accountable at the town level, I think it makes sense for the delivery of a lot of the services they are responsible for to happen in cooperation with neighboring towns).

For the county level, OTOH, I'm having a hard time coming up with a purpose that serves that can't be handled either at the town or the state level. A county serves too many people, across to wide a geographic area, to be really "local," but it's smaller than a state, so I'm really having a hard time understanding what it actually provides.

Don't the counties manage the superior court vicinages? 

Just to put NJ's "too much local government issue" in national perspective:

National avg of government units per 10,000 population: 30

NY: 17.7 

PA: 38.5

DE: 37.2

NJ: 15.6 (34th in rank)

Obviously, this is because NJ is one of the densely populated states in the country. But it also suggests that NJ's "too many municipalities leads to fiscal inefficiency" problem may be overblown.

Used to be, but I think not any more.

dave said:

Don't the counties manage the superior court vicinages? 

The Sheriff's office provides the court officers and prisoner transport services. That can be as easily managed by the state as by the county, you'd think.

dave said:

Don't the counties manage the superior court vicinages? 

dave said:

Don't the counties manage the superior court vicinages? 

Yes, and it's one of the reasons that Essex County taxes are so high. Essex Co. superior courts are the busiest in the state. My recollection is that  attempts were made several years ago to have the state take over the Essex Co. superior courts several years ago, but were unsuccessful. 

What about the community colleges?   They receive about 20% of their funding from the county and 18% from the state. The rest comes tuition and fees. 

gerardryan said:

The Sheriff's office provides the court officers and prisoner transport services. That can be as easily managed by the state as by the county, you'd think.

dave said:

Don't the counties manage the superior court vicinages? 

That's exactly how it works in Mass. You go to the Middlesex or Essex or **whatever** county courthouse - but everyone is appointed and managed at the state level.

@RobB will correct me if I'm wrong, but Massachusetts kept two counties, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Since they are islands, this appears to make at least a little sense to me.

I believe Maryland did the opposite and got rid of municipalities. You can still say which city or town you are in based on the old borders, but I don't think they have legal meaning any more.

I agree with @xavier67 in saying that the too-many-municipalities problem doesn't look as big as some people claim.

About a quarter of the old counties still exist, Nantucket and MV (Dukes) are two of them. 

The problem with the large number of municipalities we have in New Jersey is the duplication of effort and expertise required to keep all of them running effectively. It would be far more economical and efficient if at least some of this number were reduced. Since this doesn't seem likely to happen given the large number of vested interests who would oppose the action necessary to merge municipalities where it makes sense, an alternative would be to create yet another layer of government through the creation of regional authorities which could perform some of these functions through a shared service arrangement. The existing county structure could be used to provide services a regional authority might provide.  However, the counties would have to be willing to (a) provide these services as lead agency; and (b) take the leadership initiative needed to make this happen.

gerardryan said:

Used to be, but I think not any more.

dave said:

Don't the counties manage the superior court vicinages? 

The Superior Court is managed on the State level by The Administrative Office of the Courts in Trenton. The County Governments have no involvement, however  

gerardryan said:

The Sheriff's office provides the court officers and prisoner transport services. That can be as easily managed by the state as by the county, you'd think.

The Sheriff is an elected County Official. 

xavier67 said:

Just to put NJ's "too much local government issue" in national perspective:

National avg of government units per 10,000 population: 30

NY: 17.7 

PA: 38.5

DE: 37.2

NJ: 15.6 (34th in rank)

Obviously, this is because NJ is one of the densely populated states in the country. But it also suggests that NJ's "too many municipalities leads to fiscal inefficiency" problem may be overblown.

Haven't see that metric before - could you post a link to the source? Thx.

i like the idea of getting rid of counties and shifting responsibilities to the state.  That would stalwart 'citizens first' politicians- like King Christie- a chance to showw their concern for "Everyman".  Other pols, just like King cc, would even-handedly, with  a strict eye to fairness, quickly act for the benefit of the greatest good for the greatest number.  This would also preclude anotther "revengegate"

YEAH,  like the idea.  Let's make it happen soon.