Are Towns Worth Saving?

1,259 town governments in Wisconsin provide key local government services to nearly 1.7 million residents (30.4% of total state population). 95% of the land area in Wisconsin is within towns. Towns maintain 61,780 miles of town highways. Town government in Wisconsin is responsive and cost effective in the delivery of the full range of services from highways; to fire, police, and ambulance service; to tax assessment, billing, and collecting; to conducting elections; to providing solid waste and recycling services; to providing sewer and water; plus a wide range of other services. Yet towns are sometimes cast as the poor cousins of Wisconsin's local government family. In fact, cities and villages do get more money and power from the state -- including the power to annex parts of neighboring towns. The annexation process poses obvious problems for towns, but the real damage is the poisonous effect annexations, or the threat of annexations, have on intergovernmental relations. Because of Wisconsin's archaic annexation laws, neighboring governments are involved in frequent turf battles that undercut sound regional planning and efficient service delivery.

Another impact of the state's ongoing annexation battles is the negative picture pro-annexation advocates sometimes paint of town government. To help promote annexations, towns are sometimes described as inefficient, self-serving institutions that just don't fit in to the modern world. Ironically, pro-annexation leaders even criticise towns on the grounds that they have irregular borders -- even though these self-same borders are the result of past, ill-considered annexations.

In this context, it is important to focus occasionally on the many reasons why townspeople across Wisconsin are working so hard to preserve the town form of government. Here are some of the reasons:

Grassroots Heritage: At a time when virtually all levels of government, from Washington to the local school board, have become remote and bureaucratic, it is comforting to note that 1.5 million Wisconsin residents (roughly a third of the state) still live in towns that thrive on citizen participation and direct democracy.

Towns Focus on Nuts-And-Bolts Services: Town residents have a local government that is focused on basic public services like road maintenance, fire protection, snow plowing, building permits and lots of other services that people depend on every day. They know that towns are a lot like the corner hardware store -- places where Americans can still go to find people who are reasonable and knowledgeable, but rarely pretentious.

Towns Remain Simple In an Age of Complexity: Historically, towns were reliable and efficient building blocks in the development of Wisconsin. Today, they use modern tools to deliver public services, but they remain structurally simple and accountable, with a town board, a handful of advisory committees and town employees. Citizens get results because there's simply no place to hide in a town hall.

Towns Are Thrifty: The average town spent only $409 per resident in 2004, compared to $1,261 per capita in cities. Towns got only $133 per capita from federal and state aid programs in that year, while cities received $344 per resident. Also, accumulated general obligation debt was only $180 per capita in towns versus $1,131 per resident in cities.

Towns Thrive on Volunteerism: Part of the reason towns operate so efficiently is the huge amount of service offered by volunteers. The Town Volunteer Fire Department is more than a proud part of our heritage -- with modern equipment and skills, volunteers still play a vital role in town government.

Towns Are the Last Refuge of Direct Democracy: Long before national politicians started holding "town meetings" towns had been meeting for generations. We still hold real town meetings -- the kind where town residents themselves help set the agenda and discuss issues as a community. The kind where every elector who has lived in the town for more than 10 days is welcome. The kind where taxpayers actually get to vote on their own property tax rate. We think that alone makes the town form of government worth saving.

Towns Are a Good Match with Counties: Town and county governments work together to deliver basic services efficiently. Towns focus on local services and allow counties to deliver more regional-scale services. Cities and villages are much more independent. Some big cities blur the distinction between "local" and "regional" governmental roles by trying to be both. They will even justify their efforts to annex urban towns out of existance on the grounds that they can deliver critical public service on a more regional (and, presumably, more efficient) scale. But if bigger is better, then why not just shift all of these services to the county level of government? After all, aren't counties bigger than even the largest central cities? The point is that towns may actually offer a better municipal/county governance model for the 21st Century than the "central city" approach that became so popular in the last century. The town/county relationship simply makes sense: Towns focus on local services (such as building and maintaining town roads) and counties focus on regional services (such as building and maintaining county highways). There are some major problems with the state laws that regulate the county/town relationship, but the basic idea is sound. The real key to high quality, efficient services in the future is governments working together in a coordinated and fair effort to serve mutual constituents.

Towns may be cast as local government's black sheep, but their unique attributes make them worth saving. Far from annexing towns off the map, Wisconsin should be preserving and drawing strength from this simple, but effective form of government. There will always be BIG GOVERNMENT -- lets hope there will always be small towns too.

To learn more about our vision for the future, see the 2007-08 WTA Legislative Agenda