The United States was founded on the idea that we should strive to be a “city upon a hill.” Turns out one group of impassioned Syracuse citizens are working to embody John Winthrop’s vision.

Consensus, a volunteer commission working toward a better future for Onondaga County, recently put forth a report outlining 51 recommendations for ways in which the city and county governments can consolidate resources. One of these suggestions seems to have overshadowed the rest: a complete merger between the city of Syracuse and Onondaga County.

The 19-member group aims to streamline services, including water supply, waste and police forces, to name a few, to cut costs. The commission’s research found that Onondaga County spends approximately $100 million on redundant services. The suggestions encompass five integral areas of Onondagan life that can be improved: public safety, infrastructure, municipal operations, economic development and governance.

At this time, the merger is solely a controversial proposal. But, eventually, the unification of city and county may be necessary for the city of Syracuse. The 36 municipalities in Onondaga County that often overlap in services mirror a government structure of the 1800s — when horses were the vehicles of choice. Even if it takes years to come to fruition, Consensus is promoting necessary modernization.

If the city and county merge governments, there would be more access to state-sponsored funding due to the greater population under the umbrella jurisdiction and residents would receive a more efficient delivery of streamlined services.

“The whole study is not about a merger — it is about modernizing our government and building the economy,” said Bea González, a member of the Consensus commission and Dean of Syracuse University’s University College. “The merger can be an aspect of it, but does not have to be.”

Onondaga County and Syracuse are suffering from a failure to adapt to changing times: Interstate 81 problematically runs right through the middle of the city, extreme poverty concentration has increased, population has decreased and costs for services are rising. The 36 static and generally disconnected local governments could benefit from a centralized governing body in a step toward thriving again.

“(The outcomes the commission hopes to achieve range) from opportunity to improve infrastructure to less problems with water services to a parks system expanding across the county,” González said. “As well as improving road quality, an example everyone could get behind.”

Consensus’ intentions are not without concern. Some have voiced the opinion that the economic incentive of decreased taxes is not substantial enough to want a merger, whereas others do not have faith in the county government to place such a large jurisdiction under its purview. Others still believe the merger will be divisive, rather than unifying. Minority groups have also raised the concern that they will not be heard, their representation will fade and they will be swept to the side when it comes to political presence.

“It is certain that there would be a huge redistribution of power and the chances of that being beneficial to the people of Syracuse is unambiguous,” said John Yinger, a professor of economics and public policy in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

While these concerns are valid, it seems that many can be cured with participating in the discussion — a current priority of Consensus — with optimism and considering the extent of a county’s financial benefits beyond tax cuts.

The fact that many cities, including Buffalo in 2005, have tried to marry their counties, without realization, is a testament to the necessity and the lack of downside to the ones who are successful.

Maybe the skeptical citizen’s underlying fear is that Syracuse will try to merge with Onondaga County and fail, considering there are some issues that Consensus has not addressed properly, including education. However, the commission has made clear that it has left schools out of the equation, deeming them too important to be thrown into the mix this early in the process.

Let’s say that the merger doesn’t provide all of these positive changes. But even the cases in which cities and counties merged and did not achieve all they had hoped to were not worsened because of the merger itself — instead the stagnancy remained. And it is revealing that no city and county have ever converged and then broken apart.

This may be the opportunity for Syracuse and Onondaga County to become a metropolitan area people are happy to live in. This was seen after consolidation in Kansas City, a blue-collar turned trendy city, that has successfully attracted young people who hope to reap the benefits of a stronger government administration.

There does not need to be a final answer right now — no one likes change and no one likes to pave the way. But the fact that the conversation has begun, and that people are actively participating in the discussion of the city’s future as a means to create a government in tune with the times is showing a shift in culture that was not apparent two years ago when the commission was founded.

This change would be the first of its kind for New York state since New York City’s merger in 1898. It would require a leap of faith from both the government and citizens alike — one that could lead to Syracuse and Onondaga County being a beautiful partnership, one that becomes “the city on a hill.”

Joanna Orland is a freshman newspaper and online journalism major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at jorland@syr.edu.

Published on February 18, 2016 at 2:17 am