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.
While conventional wisdom might suggest otherwise, the new annexation law being voted on in the next week by the NC legislature might actually help NC's cities in the long run. The proposed law would make it harder for cities to force annexation on its edges.
Over the last several decades, NC cities have been on a rampage of annexation. Charlotte (especially), followed by Raleigh, Fayetteville and even Cary have grown their populations and tax bases by swallowing up dozens of square miles of suburban development. While this has increased the immediate tax bases, it has also put those cities on the hook for future infrastructure maintenance and services. Could the new law actually cause the cities to re-think their growth strategies to be inclusive of more infill projects that increase the tax base without expanding the infrastructure? Could these restrictions come at the perfect time as all leading indicators suggest that the younger generation doesn't have the same appetite for suburbia as their parents and grandparents?
While restrictive annexation laws in other states were the bane of many cities over the last 50 years, could they now be seen as a boon to those who have them now? NC cities' densities per square mile have been halved since the automobile age. Could new restrictions on annexation return more of our city footprints to a multi-modal view on transportation including (God forbid), walking? Could this law be a key game changer in developing the sort of cities that future generations now seem to want?
Right now, no major NC city has a density above 3000 ppl/sq mile. This could prove to be a very expensive model in the future. In particular, what might Charlotte and Raleigh look like at say 4,500 ppl/sq mile without increasing footprints? Certainly that density can't be "peanut buttered" across both cities evenly because of the huge amount of land developed in the single family suburban model. But, it could be achieved as an average if targeted corridors were develop far in excess of the 4,500 average. More of this development would be a win-win for each city. On the one hand, it would increase revenue for them to provide services and maintenance without over-expanding their coverage areas. On the other hand, it would provide more walkable communities for those who want them and to attract and retain the best and the brightest of the coming generations.
While I don't think that the Republicans have this in mind and are more focused on "property rights", I think it could be a pleasant unintended consequence for cities.
While conventional wisdom might suggest otherwise, the new annexation law being voted on in the next week by the NC legislature might actually help NC's cities in the long run. The proposed law would make it harder for cities to force annexation on its edges.
So long as that doesn't affect the already existing developments placed at the edges of the cities... maybe so.
Quote:
While I don't think that the Republicans have this in mind and are more focused on "property rights", I think it could be a pleasant unintended consequence for cities.
I suspect all the R's have in mind is an ability to develop farmland just outside the cities with no expectation of any responsibility for what comes of that.
Draw a radius line or define a density criteria and stick with it.
A level playing field with known foul lines can work for all.
south carolina's does not help the cities at all......greenville, sc is easily a city of over 300k if you visit, but the population of the limits is measly and small and just 56k
The problem with the proposed annexation law is it allows cities to decide without public input. Surely the people living in the affected areas have the right to determine whether or not to make drastic changes to their hometowns. As it is the proposed law is about cutting off "undesirable" parts of municipalities in order to foist the costs of services onto county budgets.
Who cities want to annex is 100% a $$$$ tax grab. They take ONLY the areas where providing the services required will cost less than the taxes they will collect.
I have seen this in action in Asheville. They were attempting to annex an area where I lived. One landowner showed them (city planning) that while his property did abut a road they were annexing, the entrance to his property was from a different road, a gravel road. That would mean they would have to improve and pave about a 1/4 mile of that road, if they annexed him.
He still lives in the county 10 years later, but many adjoining properties were annexed.
When a city says "grow" they mean only one thing $$$$$
south carolina's does not help the cities at all......greenville, sc is easily a city of over 300k if you visit, but the population of the limits is measly and small and just 56k
That's actually my point. Limiting annexation over the last few decades has hurt some cities. However, is there a limit to how large a city's land should grow? Charlotte is almost 300 square miles. That's nearing 12 times the land size of Greenville (26 square miles). Though not nearly as large, Raleigh is almost 150 square miles. Does there become a point where a city's land area is big enough? Is there a danger in growing a suburban footprint beyond a certain size? Does it become unbearably expensive to maintain a city's infrastructure on a largely suburban development model and tax base?
While cities like Greenville missed an expansion opportunity during the boom years, will cities like Charlotte and Raleigh ultimately benefit from reigning in footprint expansion relative to growth?
...is there a limit to how large a city's land should grow?
Charlotte is almost 300 square miles (731,000 residents)
Raleigh is almost 150 square miles (403,000 residents)
Perspective:
Baltimore has been finished annexing area since about 1900.
With just 92 square miles it has 620,000 residents now (during the 40's close to 900,000).
Philadelphia is 142 sq miles with 1,500,000 residents.
Quote:
Does there become a point where a city's land area is big enough?
Is there a danger in growing a suburban footprint beyond a certain size?
Yes and Yes.
Quote:
Does it become unbearably expensive to maintain a city's infrastructure on a largely suburban development model and tax base?
I'd say no. But this describes the *effect* of the current model.
The cause is the problem:
That the people of those outlying developments and older rural crossroads nearby have their very existence focused like flowers to the sun toward what the city needs and wants. They'll use the facilities and services of that infrastructure, draw their income from it and so forth. That has to be reconciled somehow.
Does NC want these surrounding counties to become politically independent of their city (like Baltimore and Richmond) and somehow or other expand their capacity to provide the municipal services and infrastructure that their more dense areas require? It seems to me like they're happy to be shed of the obligation.
Could the new law actually cause the cities to re-think their growth strategies to be inclusive of more infill projects that increase the tax base without expanding the infrastructure?
Some cities (or at least one) has already started doing just that.
In 1998, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County voters approved a half-cent sales tax increase to establish a dedicated revenue stream to support the Charlotte-region’s 2025 transit and land-use plan. This was a big leap of faith and a strong demonstration of support by Charlotte-Mecklenburg voters, as this additional sales tax gave Mecklenburg County the distinction of having the highest sales tax rate in the state – and this is a city and region that faces stiff competition for commerce from our adjacent neighbor, the State of South Carolina. The pitch for establishing the dedicated transit revenue stream in Charlotte-Mecklenburg was an easy sell because of three factors – we presented a compelling vision in the 2025 transit and land-use plan, the state government agreed to be a funding partner and the Federal government was identified as a partner through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998. http://banking.senate.gov/public/ind...8-40f0717a40a3
As of 2011, that 1998 plan has created areas of Charlotte that look like the following:
^^^And there's more currently under construction this year.
To answer the OP's question; will we see more urban/transit friendly development from other NC cities just because the state decided to make annexations more difficult? I doubt it. Why? Because a city that is serious about such a thing would have started doing it before the new annexation law.
FWIW, (since we've seen what Charlotte has done in the last 14 years) here is a short video of Charlotte recently getting an $18 million grant from the Feds to help expand light rail to UNC Charlotte by 2017.
Last but certainly NOT least, it is not wise to judge a city by its "on paper" density. Take a look at Kansas City (density less than 2,000 people per sq/mile). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9/92/Kcsky.jpg
^^^Clearly, there are areas of this city that's MUCH more dense than Charlotte and Raleigh. Much of the city's density drops off due to areas east of downtown (Charlotte's density drops off due to areas west and north-west of uptown). Just sayin...
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 05-18-2012 at 01:26 AM..
I can understand that there might not be much of a need for a lot of more rural communities to annex land but I don't think that you should restrict the larger, more metropolitan cities' ability to annex when needed! Basically, if you live outside of Charlotte, Raleigh or Greensboro and you're using their city services for free, then those municipalities have a right to annex you into their city limits, plain and simple! The reason a lot of these people are fighting against annexation is because they don't want to pay for those city services that they're getting for free, that's the way I see it!
I can understand that there might not be much of a need for a lot of more rural communities to annex land but I don't think that you should restrict the larger, more metropolitan cities' ability to annex when needed! Basically, if you live outside of Charlotte, Raleigh or Greensboro and you're using their city services for free, then those municipalities have a right to annex you into their city limits, plain and simple! The reason a lot of these people are fighting against annexation is because they don't want to pay for those city services that they're getting for free, that's the way I see it!
Clearly cities cannot afford to provide services for nothing but these types of annexations aren't the only ones. Cities have regularly annexed land that required the residents to connect to city services at their own expense. These types of annexations have been contentious.
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.
