In the Sunday Gazette-Mail, local state Sen. Brooks McCabe offers to explain the parameters of local consolidation, i.e. metro government (Nov. 30). However his explanation obfuscates more than clarifies the Consolidated Local Government Act (Code 7A-1-1), which he engineered to passage in the Legislature three years ago.

Sen. McCabe introduces his subject by stating that which metro government will do and not do using examples as tax structures and municipal services. He then switches in midstream by offering how the form of metro government and services to be consolidated will "be the subject of a new charter developed by a charter review committee in concert with the county commission and Charleston City Council." This illustrates the fundamental flaw of proclaiming metro government's limitations yet acknowledging the primacy of who determines those limitations.

Seven persons would make up this charter review committee. Two would be county commissioners (all presently Charleston residents) or their designees and two from Charleston. These four individuals would select the remaining three members of the charter review committee, one of whom must be from an unincorporated area of the county. Such composition while reflecting the interests of the capital city leaves the rest of county less certain.

Discussing at length the rights and responsibilities left intact for local governments, Sen. McCabe omits from his narrative the provision of the Consolidated Local Government Act, which states the powers of the metro government "shall be construed broadly in its favor." (Code 7A-21-1(d) This alone casts doubt upon the autonomy we are assured will remain. Further doubt exists by not allowing municipalities to "opt out" of the concept. If metro government receives 55 percent of the vote (the senator and others now want 50 percent,) the provisions of the charter committee will govern even if every voter in a community voted in opposition.

In a companion piece, Matthew Watts urges our attention to the social ills affecting this region. Rev. Watts questions but does not answer whether consolidation will offer great progress on those issues or make them less apparent. Metro proponents repeatedly cite Louisville's short-lived experience yet ignore Miami's longer and more dubious history with the concept. More relevant models may be rust belt success stories as Pittsburgh or Cleveland where the central city is surrounded by smaller, separately incorporated municipal governments as we presently have in Kanawha County.

These examples to our north witnessed leadership within the central city fostering economic and cultural growth through a dynamic partnership of the public and private sectors in the region as a whole. Another view of metro government suggests artificial government fiat that limits participation by the public and makes accountability to that same public more remote.

In the Sunday Gazette-Mail, local state Sen. Brooks McCabe offers to explain the parameters of local consolidation, i.e. metro government (Nov. 30). However his explanation obfuscates more than clarifies the Consolidated Local Government Act (Code 7A-1-1), which he engineered to passage in the Legislature three years ago.

Sen. McCabe introduces his subject by stating that which metro government will do and not do using examples as tax structures and municipal services. He then switches in midstream by offering how the form of metro government and services to be consolidated will "be the subject of a new charter developed by a charter review committee in concert with the county commission and Charleston City Council." This illustrates the fundamental flaw of proclaiming metro government's limitations yet acknowledging the primacy of who determines those limitations.

Seven persons would make up this charter review committee. Two would be county commissioners (all presently Charleston residents) or their designees and two from Charleston. These four individuals would select the remaining three members of the charter review committee, one of whom must be from an unincorporated area of the county. Such composition while reflecting the interests of the capital city leaves the rest of county less certain.

Discussing at length the rights and responsibilities left intact for local governments, Sen. McCabe omits from his narrative the provision of the Consolidated Local Government Act, which states the powers of the metro government "shall be construed broadly in its favor." (Code 7A-21-1(d) This alone casts doubt upon the autonomy we are assured will remain. Further doubt exists by not allowing municipalities to "opt out" of the concept. If metro government receives 55 percent of the vote (the senator and others now want 50 percent,) the provisions of the charter committee will govern even if every voter in a community voted in opposition.

In a companion piece, Matthew Watts urges our attention to the social ills affecting this region. Rev. Watts questions but does not answer whether consolidation will offer great progress on those issues or make them less apparent. Metro proponents repeatedly cite Louisville's short-lived experience yet ignore Miami's longer and more dubious history with the concept. More relevant models may be rust belt success stories as Pittsburgh or Cleveland where the central city is surrounded by smaller, separately incorporated municipal governments as we presently have in Kanawha County.

These examples to our north witnessed leadership within the central city fostering economic and cultural growth through a dynamic partnership of the public and private sectors in the region as a whole. Another view of metro government suggests artificial government fiat that limits participation by the public and makes accountability to that same public more remote.