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.
The core issue is the main annexations into Stockbridge are along Eagles landing Pkwy and I-75 and along US23.
Stockbridge has effectively annexed all the commercial land and left a good deal of unincorporated areas, which pretty much prevents any other city from ever forming in the area.
Thinking through this... I'm a bit biased from being Gwinnett. We have so many small cities and many are right next to each other. There is a great deal of good and bad examples, but it doesn't ever seem to be a big deal to people to have different cities with small identity differences so close together..
There is even one odd case where the city of Rest Haven has been trying to cease to exist and join Buford.
Peachtree Corners cityhood was started as a movement from Norcross annexing far less in a mostly contiguous area from its borders. Although, I have some disagreements over the borders of Peachtree Corners. It took in lots of parcels that could have been better served claimed by Norcross, Berkeley Lake, and Duluth.
Still Peachtree Corners has a unique identity and didn't want Norcross selectively annexing commercial parcels, so it is a similar case... but without the pre-existing runaway annexations.
Buford GA has the same problems. They have annexed commercial property approaching the Mall of Georgia and effectively cut off Sugar Hill from being able to annex any areas closer to the commercial corridors.
The big ticket here is Buford has its own school system, so there is a great deal of school property tax receipts at stake in any commercial annexations. Atleast in most other areas that money wasn't affected with county-based schools.
They have also annexed along Peacthree Industrial/Mcever and US23/13 into Hall county very close to Flowery Branch
Ah, thanks--saw this one.
They need to make a map of the potentially affected 3.500 residents and the area along GA138.
But besides that this creates a precedent in Georgia that does not look good. This is what they do in Alabama!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy
I had the same exact reaction — this is what they do over in ALABAMA! The fracturing of communities is a no-win situation and a terrible precedent for Georgia. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail and pass new legislation that prevents this from getting out of hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jero23
Pause, this is what you do in GEORGIA! Own it, deal with it, and leave Alabama out of it, period. This is what happens when you throw shade at other states while not keeping an eye on your own state parlor-tricks.
I've actually never heard of this practice before. Is this standard practice in Alabama and other Southern states? And I'm assuming this is the first time it's happened in Georgia. In my native South Carolina, this isn't really an issue since the annexation laws are already so archaic and stringent to begin with.
These people never voted to be in Stockbridge, in fact the core residents in Stockbridge never voted to include them.
Stockbridge used petition based annexation procedures from large property owners from 2000-2018 to incorporate those areas. These areas are not a part of the traditional city of Stockbridge or the core of Stockbridge, but new development south of the original city.
They picked and chose what to include and went after high value properties.
100% of all property owners in the proposed annexed area to sign on, or...
60% of property owners AND 60% of voters in the proposed annexed area to sign on
No there wasn't a vote, but there was an equivalent in the form of the people signing petitions representing more than a simple majority of voters.
Yeah, you can say that Stockbridge targeted high-earning areas, but it was up to those areas to accept. A city CAN NOT force an area to be annexed without consent of at least 60% of property owners and voters.
Location: Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh
2,580 posts, read 2,484,874 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I've actually never heard of this practice before. Is this standard practice in Alabama and other Southern states? And I'm assuming this is the first time it's happened in Georgia. In my native South Carolina, this isn't really an issue since the annexation laws are already so archaic and stringent to begin with.
No, I am very familiar with the Alabama Constitution, and it is not standard practice in Alabama of splitting existing municipalities for the allowance of the creation of another jurisdiction. There is no provision on their 780+ amendments at all that even remotely come close to this Georgia statute. The division of counties are the only thing close to this statute. Georgia is on an island of its own on that municipality aspect.
I find it bizarre why willful ignorance of assumptions runs amongst some many intelligent people about an adjacent state code. Especially, when the history of both state codes are very similar even to present day when it comes to municipal corporations.
I have a south side Metro Atlanta map that is dated from just a few years ago. When I bought it and studied it after having moved to Clayton County, I noted that both Stockbridge & McDonough (the county seat of Henry County) have a similar, very uneven city limit demarcation line that features many irregular areas of what could be described as un-annexed nooks & crannies. Additionally, both communities began originally as a pure circle (as was the case with may Georgia towns & cities in the 1800's).
So that begs the question as to why it is that only Stockbridge is being picked on with this type of de-annexation legislation?
On another thread related to this Stockbridge issue, I pointed out that Marietta has an extremely uneven city limit line. It is at least as uneven as is the case with Stockbridge.
So, in view of all of that, a secondary questions also comes to mind in that where will this lead to down the road given that it sets a precedent for the forcible removal of an area from a city?
I don't trust the overly heavy hand of the Georgia legislature to be fair by any stretch of the imagination in such affairs and hate to see a Pandora's Box of more city meddling now opened by our "wise" legislators.
Last edited by atler8; 05-10-2018 at 08:08 AM..
Reason: corrected spelling errors
100% of all property owners in the proposed annexed area to sign on, or...
60% of property owners AND 60% of voters in the proposed annexed area to sign on
No there wasn't a vote, but there was an equivalent in the form of the people signing petitions representing more than a simple majority of voters.
Yeah, you can say that Stockbridge targeted high-earning areas, but it was up to those areas to accept. A city CAN NOT force an area to be annexed without consent of at least 60% of property owners and voters.
Stockbridge did these annexations through a long series of 100% method annexations over a period of time. Most of these properties along Eagle Landing Parkway/Hudson Bridge Road were formerly farm or timber land owned by a single property owner, a whole family, or a trustee/executor/heir of said property owner. I've seen several jurisdictions pull these type of stunts with the cauliform like boundaries.
As I originally said my original argument can't apply to Buckhead, because it is completely based on systematic annexations that are checkerboard in nature.
That never occurred in Buckhead and doesn't exist as a problem today, so you can't take my original argument and apply to Buckhead.
It matters.
Logic matters.
You want to make what I consider an irrelevant "carve-out" (kind of like those residential areas surrounded on 3 sides by Stockbridge). I don't consider that relevant or logical. And it is more of a checkerboard than a thin peninsula. The annexation is not totally illogical.
The relevant point is that the legislature is pulling revenue producing areas out of a city to add to a different city. And that is a dangerous precedent.
100% of all property owners in the proposed annexed area to sign on, or...
60% of property owners AND 60% of voters in the proposed annexed area to sign on
No there wasn't a vote, but there was an equivalent in the form of the people signing petitions representing more than a simple majority of voters.
Yeah, you can say that Stockbridge targeted high-earning areas, but it was up to those areas to accept. A city CAN NOT force an area to be annexed without consent of at least 60% of property owners and voters.
Now, hold on....
Let's put on our thinking cap here and look at the entirety of my previous arguments.
If these annexations occurred in rapid exurban/suburban growth and developers were the land owners doing the annexation to get preferential zoning treatment before building, no residents voted on the matter.
A shell-comany LLC, the property owner of a large parcel to be developed, that owned the land petitioned for it to be annexed. That was the case in a majority of the parcels.
The checkerboard is then created by developers and the city negotiating over the worth of joining the city for favorable treatment. To some degree this is fine if the city is adequately caring for the area and not overly depending on county services, but the patchwork is spotty and many large arterials were purposefully left in county hands or previously paid for the by the county and they were just giving away development credits without respects to county zoning based on what the county built infrastructure for.
So if we are to create such a high barrier of city wide voting for all people to have their say, it is worth acknowledging such a vote never existed to annex the properties.
Now I do believe any change in the affected area requires a vote.
Debt service also requires close attention, more then it has been given. Luckily the debt is small and those assets are all close to the old town. The largest part is the new city hall building itself.
You want to make what I consider an irrelevant "carve-out" (kind of like those residential areas surrounded on 3 sides by Stockbridge). I don't consider that relevant or logical. And it is more of a checkerboard than a thin peninsula. The annexation is not totally illogical.
The relevant point is that the legislature is pulling revenue producing areas out of a city to add to a different city. And that is a dangerous precedent.
It is equally dangerous precedent to allow a city and company to selectively annex the commercial areas adjacent to freeways, major US routes, and major county built arterials taking up all the revenue positive lane, while preventing adjacent unincorporated parcels that might want to incorporate from having access and control of commercial and industrial lands adjacent to where they live.
Cities need to cohesively control the residential, commercial,and industrial areas of the cohesive area in their immediatly proximity to be viable. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing who gets to control a free cash-cow.
The core city of Stockbridge to the north, doesn't want to loose their hand-selected cash cow to the south.
Those are clearly peninsulas designed to take in most land along Eagles Landing Pkwy and I-75 and along US23. The clear commercial development assets in the area, which weren't even funded the city initially.
It is equally dangerous precedent to allow a city and company to selectively annex the commercial areas adjacent to freeways, major US routes, and major county built arterials taking up all the revenue positive lane, while preventing adjacent unincorporated parcels that might want to incorporate from having access and control of commercial and industrial lands adjacent to where they live.
Cities need to cohesively control the residential, commercial,and industrial areas of the cohesive area in their immediatly proximity to be viable. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing who gets to control a free cash-cow.
The core city of Stockbridge to the north, doesn't want to loose their hand-selected cash cow to the south.
Those are clearly peninsulas designed to take in most land along Eagles Landing Pkwy and I-75 and along US23. The clear commercial development assets in the area, which weren't even funded the city initially.
That is pretty much the way annexation happens everywhere, partly because development does not happen in a smooth manner and partly for financial reasons. Its definitely not ideal, but its hardly unique to Stockbridge. Decatur was trying to annex all the commercial property around them without any residents if they could help it. But their annexation bill got nowhere in the legislature. I think it was you mentioned Peachtree City grabbing commercial areas that made more sense elsewhere.
Stockbridge at least seems to have done it by mutual consent with the landowners, which was the landowners own self-determination.
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.
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.
). I don't consider that relevant or logical. And it is more of a checkerboard than a thin peninsula. The annexation is not totally illogical.
