Why is it that the Republican Party, the people that control most if not all the local villages; the party of smaller government and lower taxes; are the people who fight tooth and nail to keep a governmental system that is dysfunctional, outdated, and only serves to increase taxes and the size of government?

Why is it that a Democratic governor is fighting to reduce the size and costs of government? Ask your village government board. And ask them if they have read the report from the Commission of Local Government Efficiency.

Do you know that your local town cannot own a fire department? But the law requires that they provide town residents with fire protection. So they must contract with a village or independent fire department. But, by law, the fire department does not need to explain the costs of providing protection.

So we have a case where a village government and fire department can tell the town that they must pay over $60,000 a year for fire protection, but doesn't need to say what the money is used for, or even how many calls were made the previous year!

Or how about when a village bridge fails, but since villages can't own bridges, the town can decide to replace a bridge that the village doesn't want.

So we all pay for a bridge and then the village (legally) blocks it so it can't be used. Cost - $300,000. Both are cases where two governments are not better then one.

We can all cite such cases in each town and village where personalities have gotten in the way of common sense.

Local citizens are not powerless to act on their own. If one-third of the resident electors petition their village to consolidate their village with the local town, the village must act, and put it to a vote.

But, we could avoid such unpleasantness if the village(s) would begin the study of consolidation.

It need not cost the village money to study the question, there are grants available to help.

However, your board needs to hear that it is important to you that this begin.

Michael Riley

Port Byron