351 towns for a state of 6 million might seem inefficient, but it could be worse. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which is where Pittsburgh is located, has 130 municipalities for only 1.3 million people. That's a whole lot of municipal government for a small area.

Here's a good example where some type of partnership between towns would save $$$$$.

I grew up in Marshfield, close to the Humarock section of Scituate. For those not familiar with Humarock, it is completely separated from the rest of Scituate due to a storm that relocated the mouth of the North and South rivers. The entirety of Humarock is about two miles long by less than 1/4 mile. By road, Humarock is miles from any other part of Scituate.

Yet, Scituate maintains a fire station on Humarock, and has a police cruiser there. The fire station use to close during the off-season. I haven't been there for years, so maybe the situation is different now. But, even then, I always wondered why Scituate didn't work some kind of deal with Marshfield to provide those services

You make it sound like places like Alabama and Mississippi are nicer places to live than Swampscott and Braintree...

I think we should have some regionalization but some people like to know who their fire chief is. I live in one of those fiefdoms but it is run by a manager rather than a mayor. He does thing in a very efficient manner and doesnt listen to the political winds on a daily basis but will give in when he feels the winds are definitly going against him . The fire and police chiefs are also like that but once again if the community feels strongly about something and remain persistent then they tend to follow the popular will.

In a regionalization situation it seems impossible to change anything, and your most likely not going to know most of the people in charge of services. I find that when we attempt to regionalize we get fiefdoms that are above reproach like the MBTA, Massport and the Turnpike Authority where they are almost immune to popular will.