U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-09-2018, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,559 posts, read 7,639,930 times
Reputation: 4361

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
I think a big part of my issue with this whole thing is that current residents of Stockbridge who aren't in the Eagles Landing area don't get a vote in the matter, while people in unincorporated Henry do. So you have a lot of non-residents voting about splitting an existing city apart.

IMO it should have been set up via two, separately tallied votes. First, the entirety of Stockbridge gets to vote to release Eagles Landing from the city. If, and only if, that passes, then the new area gets to vote on the formation of a new city.

As it is, though, you're really not setting up a proper democratic process.
The state sets laws for how cities and property owners can annex. You don't want to remove this process, so property owners can always choose to join an adjacent city for their benefit in the long-run.

Those largely work in the long-run, but problems arise in certain situations... usually the rapidly developing areas.


There are times where the state needs to step in and say clearly this isn't working efficiently as a whole.

I'm not entirely convinced it is fair the whole populace of Stockbridge should be able to vote over keeping an area inefficiently balkanized like it is. I view some annexation tactics used as tax digest land grabs that sometimes go too far.

The vote will go to citizens in the new city, including areas in the unincorporated portions and the Stockbridge portions. So it is a decision of the citizens of that cohesive area to go on their own in a cohesive fashion or reject it and only leave them the only option to keep annexing to Stockbridge.


Without this cities across Georgia will be enabled to continually annex preferential areas for $$$, while leaving expenditure liability areas untouched. It also gives cities incentives to annex smaller areas early to prevent other cities from potentially forming.


Atlanta, Decatur, Lilburn, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Brookhaven, Tucker, etc... are all examples of some form of a cohesive boundary. The city takes all of a neighborhood area into its boundaries, both revenue positive and negative.

Cities like Stockbridge, Buford, Smyrna, Marietta all have problem spots with this. Rapidly developing cities could follow suit if they are not careful (ie. Flowery Crossing, Auburn, Dacula, etc...)


Stockbridge just happens to be a big offender of this issue in an area that happens to have another namesake identity most residents identify with. It is the perfect storm for this argument. Everything down there is Eagles Landing... the neighborhoods, the church names, the shopping area names, the road name. The area identifies as Eagles Landing.

Should those people be forced a part by citizens in a different namesake identity area, because they checkerboard annexed other areas for their own tax digest advantages?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2018, 01:47 PM
 
769 posts, read 392,100 times
Reputation: 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
I think a big part of my issue with this whole thing is that current residents of Stockbridge who aren't in the Eagles Landing area don't get a vote in the matter, while people in unincorporated Henry do. So you have a lot of non-residents voting about splitting an existing city apart.

IMO it should have been set up via two, separately tallied votes. First, the entirety of Stockbridge gets to vote to release Eagles Landing from the city. If, and only if, that passes, then the new area gets to vote on the formation of a new city.

As it is, though, you're really not setting up a proper democratic process.
I was thinking about this too. I guess the problem with that scheme is that if the entire city gets a vote, it would never pass because the city as a whole benefits so much from Eagle's Landing. They would never let them go. You could also argue that it's not fair to the Eagle's Landing residents if they're being drained by the rest of the city but don't have a real say in anything because they're outnumbered by the rest of the city.

I think Eagle's Landing is a special case and hopefully this doesn't become a trend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 01:54 PM
bu2
 
9,898 posts, read 6,375,461 times
Reputation: 4123
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Hardly...

You clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Look at the current borders of Stockbridge and look at the current borders of Atlanta's Buckhead neighborhoods.

They can't make the same argument I just laid out. The situation is a world a part.
I understand it. I just don't think you should pull out revenue producing pieces of a city to form a new city. It wouldn't take much for Stockbridge to fill in the blanks on the east of the highway.

It is a bad precedent.

Now if the state created the mess (see city of South Fulton), then maybe there is some argument for the state to fix it. Having created South Fulton, however, the state legislature clearly doesn't care a bit about your argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 01:56 PM
bu2
 
9,898 posts, read 6,375,461 times
Reputation: 4123
Part of the reason for the checkerboard patterns is the difficulty Georgia creates for cities to annex non-commercial property. You must get the legislature to approve, which they normally don't because of the dysfunctional counties pretending to be cities system we have. And then, of course, you have to win the vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,559 posts, read 7,639,930 times
Reputation: 4361
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I understand it. I just don't think you should pull out revenue producing pieces of a city to form a new city. It wouldn't take much for Stockbridge to fill in the blanks on the east of the highway.

It is a bad precedent.

Now if the state created the mess (see city of South Fulton), then maybe there is some argument for the state to fix it. Having created South Fulton, however, the state legislature clearly doesn't care a bit about your argument.

Well if you understood the argument, then you wouldn't parallel it to the way you have with your Buckhead argument....


If that is your new argument, then I fundamentally disagree. I think it is unfair for one city to annex preferential tax digest areas that prevents a new city from forming, because it can't incorporate the tax digest areas it would need to be a viable city.

Stockbridge created its own mess in a long series of land grabs in an area that has a unique identity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,559 posts, read 7,639,930 times
Reputation: 4361
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Part of the reason for the checkerboard patterns is the difficulty Georgia creates for cities to annex non-commercial property. You must get the legislature to approve, which they normally don't because of the dysfunctional counties pretending to be cities system we have. And then, of course, you have to win the vote.
It is easy to do if you allow citizens to vote for it vs. allowing a land owner to petition in their parcel for development zoning advantages.


These checker board annexations did not occur by citizen votes in most circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,023,381 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01 View Post
I was thinking about this too. I guess the problem with that scheme is that if the entire city gets a vote, it would never pass because the city as a whole benefits so much from Eagle's Landing. They would never let them go. You could also argue that it's not fair to the Eagle's Landing residents if they're being drained by the rest of the city but don't have a real say in anything because they're outnumbered by the rest of the city.

I think Eagle's Landing is a special case and hopefully this doesn't become a trend.
Yes, the entire city gets a vote on something that affects the entire city. That shouldn't be too crazy. Just because Eagles Landing likely wouldn't win that vote doesn't make it inherently unfair.

Besides, I have a whole host of issues with the idea that it's okay for more affluent areas to just up and abandon the poor parts of the cities they're in. All that does is leave poor people with even fewer resources to break cycles of poverty and ignorance and everything else that traps poor people into being poor.

We should be willing to sacrifice some to help those less fortunate than us, especially since it makes us all better off in the long run. We used to be much better at it.

It's the same issue I have with recent cityhood movements in general. They've been gathering all the affluent areas into isolated pockets, and leave the poor people to fend for themselves in ways that leave them even worse off. It's a total failure of social responsibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,559 posts, read 7,639,930 times
Reputation: 4361
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
They've been gathering all the affluent areas into isolated pockets, and leave the poor people to fend for themselves in ways that leave them even worse off. It's a total failure of social responsibility.

You say this....


...and then ignore that is what Stockbridge did to create this checkerboard....


Also, Stockbridge isn't a poor area... and it is a financially viable city on its own w/o these parcels. Two important things your forgetting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 06:38 PM
bu2
 
9,898 posts, read 6,375,461 times
Reputation: 4123
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Well if you understood the argument, then you wouldn't parallel it to the way you have with your Buckhead argument....


If that is your new argument, then I fundamentally disagree. I think it is unfair for one city to annex preferential tax digest areas that prevents a new city from forming, because it can't incorporate the tax digest areas it would need to be a viable city.

Stockbridge created its own mess in a long series of land grabs in an area that has a unique identity.
I understand yours. I don't think its relevant, therefore, the Buckhead example is relevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2018, 06:39 PM
bu2
 
9,898 posts, read 6,375,461 times
Reputation: 4123
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
It is easy to do if you allow citizens to vote for it vs. allowing a land owner to petition in their parcel for development zoning advantages.


These checker board annexations did not occur by citizen votes in most circumstances.
No doubt. As I said, commercial annexations are much easier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top