Dallas Has No Room To Grow Outwards?? (Houston, Fort Worth: schools, land)

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by nativeDallasite

What part would that be? The parts bordered by Lancaster, DeSoto, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, etc? The only part of south Dallas not bounded by another city is to the best of my knowledge prone to flooding and has a levee system; it'd be stupid to build anything there.

That is correct. Dallas is pretty much landlocked as it is totally ringed by suburbs even though a VERY FEW on the southeast side tend to be smaller. That is because they are prone to flooding and part of The Great Trinity Forest is in that area. The landfill is also over there.

Not one single one of the suburbs bordering Dallas would STAND to be annexed by them. They ALL each have their own school system, municipal systems, etc. The ONLY one that does not have their own school system is Wilmer-Hutchins and that is because the TEA shut them down and had the DISD absorb them into their system. Again, this area is in the southeasten portion and next to the low lying areas.

[bjohns]

Originally Posted by nativeDallasite

What part would that be? The parts bordered by Lancaster, DeSoto, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, etc? The only part of south Dallas not bounded by another city is to the best of my knowledge prone to flooding and has a levee system; it'd be stupid to build anything there.

Yes those cities, they are not much and that land could be put to better use and make Dallas bigger so the cheating Fort Worth nearby cannot get the better of Dallas. I hate Fort Worth, they are sucking up all of their surrounding land and is trying to be bigger than Dallas an d Fort Worth is not glamorous at all.

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by brajo58

There is some part of Dallas in the south that is not bordered by any suburbs and plus I don't see anything wrong with annexing some suburbs like Garland and Richardson.

Here is some info for you:

Garland is a city in Dallas County, Texas, (USA). It is a northeastern suburb of Dallas and is a major part of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. As of the 2000 census, the city had a population of 215,768, making it the tenth-most populous city in Texas and the eighty-sixth most populous city in the United States. In 2007 the population is roughly 224,750.


Richardson is a suburb in Dallas County and Collin County, Texas. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 91,803, while according to a 2006 estimate, the population had grown to 99,200. Richardson is a part of Dallas' Silicon Prairie, and is home to the Telecom Corridor, which is a very large technology business center that includes offices for 5,700 companies, including 600 technology companies, such as Nortel, Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent, Tellabs, Texas Instruments, and AT&T. It is also the corporate headquarters of Fossil, Inc.

In 2006, Richardson was selected as the 15th best place to live in the United States by Money magazine.


You REALLY think either one of these cities and their citizens would be open to being annexed by the City of Dallas? LOL!!! NOT IN MY LIFETIME!

[TXTwizter]

Dude, what kind of a fantasy world are you living in??? FtWorth is not trying to get the better of Dallas.
Did you ever think that maybe FtWorth has annexed the land be cause its AVALIABLE. Where around Dallas it is not, except the landfill and floodplain mentioned above.
Yeah thats it, Dallas should annex a landfill and flood plain so it can remain more "Glamourous" than Ft.Worth.

Gimme a break!!

[nativeDallasite]

Originally Posted by momof2dfw

That is correct. Dallas is pretty much landlocked as it is totally ringed by suburbs even though a VERY FEW on the southeast side tend to be smaller. That is because they are prone to flooding and part of The Great Trinity Forest is in that area. The landfill is also over there.

Not one single one of the suburbs bordering Dallas would STAND to be annexed by them. They ALL each have their own school system, municipal systems, etc. The ONLY one that does not have their own school system is Wilmer-Hutchins and that is because the TEA shut them down and had the DISD absorb them into their system. Again, this area is in the southeasten portion and next to the low lying areas.

That's not entirely true...most of Seagoville's schools have been run by the DISD for years; tiny portions of Seagoville go to Crandall or Mesquite schools. The town hasn't had its own school district for forty years.

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by nativeDallasite

That's not entirely true...most of Seagoville's schools have been run by the DISD for years; tiny portions of Seagoville go to Crandall or Mesquite schools. The town hasn't had its own school district for forty years.

True. But Seagoville does have a state prison. Like Dallas wants to add THAT to their census.

[TXTwizter]

I think the author of the OP must be some kid playing a joke. Right?

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by bjohns

Yes those cities, they are not much and that land could be put to better use and make Dallas bigger so the cheating Fort Worth nearby cannot get the better of Dallas. I hate Fort Worth, they are sucking up all of their surrounding land and is trying to be bigger than Dallas an d Fort Worth is not glamorous at all.

Have you ever visited Dallas and/or these places your mentioning? Just wondering?

Actually the City of Dallas is MUCH better off NOT having those cities as part of it. Ft Worth is not "cheating" Dallas out of anything. There is only so much the City of Ft Worth can "suck up" as pretty soon it will be landlocked. All cities annex land that is around them in order to get a larger tax base IF IT IS WORTH IT! See the City of Rockwall for instance. There are MANY very HIGH END developments that are not IN the city limits. The city has tried to annex them but they fight tooth and nail against it. Their taxes would to up since they are only in the county and not inside of the city limits. They get no benefit from the city being "county" as far as emergency services and utilities. If they did get annexed they would but it would increae their taxes. A city does NOT annex "junk" land. Only land that has a value attached to it where they can see a benefit from the annexation. Meaning more tax dollars based on the potential development or the current use. Annex older lower end and/or flood plains brings no benefit whatsoever.

[bjohns]

Originally Posted by JVTX72

I think the author of the OP must be some kid playing a joke. Right?

Fort Worth is trying to be bigger than Dallas by annexing miles and miles of land gowing outwards towards Oklahoma and the west. They are not as glamorous or influential as dallas and most people out in that land outside of Fort Worth doesen't want to be a part of the city anyway.

[nativeDallasite]

Originally Posted by momof2dfw

True. But Seagoville does have a state prison. Like Dallas wants to add THAT to their census.

I don't think Dallas wants to annex Seagoville.