Deal Approves forming Eagles Landing from exisiting City of Stockbridge (Alpharetta: homes, neighborhood)

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

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?

[CaliDreaming01]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

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.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

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.

[bu2]

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.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by bu2

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.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by bu2

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.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01

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.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

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.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

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.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

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.