Advocates for the proposed merger of the Twin Cities provide estimates only of savings that would appeal to those who want a tax cut, but they do not provide data on the cost of achieving supposed benefits. If residents are to endure the anguish of a long and expensive transition, they want something that is better, not just cheaper.

Several of the anticipated benefits include services not now being provided. But how will they be improved without hiring new specialists? The money for that will have to come from the alleged savings. Will there be a net gain or a net loss?

The two cities have plenty of problems that the merger ignores. There is an aging population that requires more services; an aging municipal infrastructure; an aging and, in some cases dilapidated, housing stock; pockets of poverty; a significant number of new Mainers who need to be accommodated/assimilated; a regional shopping center in decline; an under-trained labor force; a drug epidemic; two central business districts that need revitalization; acres of vacant floor space in old mill buildings; and miscellaneous traffic congestion, to name a few.

Local officials do not create economic development. Companies move to a region because of business considerations — the labor force, local markets and distance to regional markets, the supply chain, transportation and utility costs and, secondarily, housing conditions, schools and cultural/recreational offerings. They don’t move because there is only one economic development agency. What are the costs of making the regional economic characteristics more attractive?

Robert Bowyer, Auburn