U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
 
 
Old 08-17-2008, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Princeton, New Jersey
937 posts, read 643,299 times
Reputation: 177

Advertisements

Why can't independent cities annex land?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2008, 09:46 PM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,611,090 times
Reputation: 827
In Minnesota, as in many states I suppose, the general rule is that organized cities can only annex unorganized townships. Two orgaized cities could merge, but it is rare. This is the reason why alot of eastern cities cannot annex land and post "population growth." Cities like Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis or Phila., almost without exception, can't grow geographically.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2008, 09:55 PM
 
Location: The 12th State
22,974 posts, read 57,213,700 times
Reputation: 14868
Two cities goverments working together and have mutual understanding to merge their services together.. I like to see the day that goes along smoothly.

I understand your question but I have seen like above cities annexing unincorporated cities and there usually a battle there.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
379 posts, read 928,611 times
Reputation: 136
Charlotte, NC has been annexing land like mad- check out its map.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 09:56 AM
 
5,639 posts, read 8,748,046 times
Reputation: 2352
It depends upon local laws. Overland Park, KS and the city of Kansas City, MO both have been annexing land around each respective city for quite some time.

It is more difficult or impossible for communities in New England and NY to annex land because of provisions written into state and local law. Also, virtually every part of southern New England is already incorporated into a city or town. Northern New England still has some unincorporated territories though I have not heard of any annexation of land taking place in recent history.

Last edited by WILWRadio; 08-18-2008 at 10:18 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 10:07 AM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
9,583 posts, read 20,456,271 times
Reputation: 9077
Because surrounding communities don't want thousands of dollars per yer added to their taxes
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 10:14 AM
 
11,015 posts, read 21,564,064 times
Reputation: 10641
Cities have no problems annexing farmlands or vacant land, but once you already have people living in those areas it can get much more complicated. Many people live in the country to avoid city costs and taxes, so they're not going to be happy when a city comes marching along and wants to swallow them up.

Then there's situations like Chicago where other little towns/cities incorporated over the years, and are completely sealing off a city from expanding into empty land. Chicago can't just eat up an independant city/town unless everyone agrees to that, which is probably quite rare. Chicago has been sealed in by suburbs for almost 60 years now.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,779 posts, read 7,337,104 times
Reputation: 4290
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
Because surrounding communities don't want thousands of dollars per yer added to their taxes
I haven't seen the figures myself. But, I've been told that, if Youngstown were to annex some of its surrounding suburbs, they would have lower taxes.

I guess this is because, currently, their property taxes are sky-high. (in the thousands of dollars a year) Most of this goes to pay for services such as police, fire, etc. If they were annexed, their property taxes would fall dramatically, but they would then have an income tax to pay for those services from the city. The savings occur because, instead of having multiple police, fire, etc. entities, there is only one provided by the city. (much more efficient, IMO)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2008, 11:34 AM
 
Location: New England & The Maritimes
2,116 posts, read 4,061,683 times
Reputation: 1114
Boston annexed a lot of neighboring towns in the 1860s and 70s but that was and will be the last of it. Brookline refused to be "Suffolk-cated" in 1873 and I could only imagine what the response would be from them (or other cities like Cambridge, Newton, and Quincy) now. It wouldn't fly.

Brookline-Boston annexation debate of 1873 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


 
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:
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 > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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