U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2015, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Tejas
443 posts, read 782,324 times
Reputation: 424

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KM1174 View Post
maybe we cat rid of alamo heights, terrell hills and all those silly cities within cities now.

probably one of THE most stupid ideas ever.
Considering every single one of them, without exception, has a lower crime rate (particularly violent crimes) than the city of San Antonio, it's not such a stupid idea. They have to pay to maintain their own infrastructure and city services as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2015, 11:13 AM
 
7,002 posts, read 10,275,808 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion View Post
Considering every single one of them, without exception, has a lower crime rate (particularly violent crimes) than the city of San Antonio, it's not such a stupid idea. They have to pay to maintain their own infrastructure and city services as well.
Those cities are mostly homogeneous when it comes to income. Considering that San Antonio is so large, it would be more fair to compare crime rates with parts of San Antonio that have similar demographics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 11:27 AM
 
Location: New Braunfels, TX
6,273 posts, read 9,028,497 times
Reputation: 6375
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM1174 View Post
LOL no. nope nope and nope.

you get no say. so what, you want your city small. doesnt work that way hoss. the greater good > your desire for a small town.

you will get over it though (the people being annexed that cant vote.. for a reason..)
Welcome to democracy.....sounds like it's a foreign concept to some - but those smaller communities incorporated for a reason - they knew that large cities eventually lose sight of the reason that they are there, and start becoming overbearing and unresponsive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 11:40 AM
 
2,097 posts, read 1,827,844 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by L210 View Post
Because those are the areas Bexar County is saying that they will have difficulty serving as they grow. Bexar County is pushing for these areas to be annexed specifically because they have high population densities. If the state legislature doesn't want cities to make "land grabs," then they should give urban counties more power to pass the types of ordinances only cities are allowed to have.

My larger point was that the city's motivation is clearly visible by the ranking of their proposed annexation priorities. The NW parcel along I-10 is the city's number one choice for a reason, and it isn't population density. It represents the largest payout for future property tax revenues. It's much less densely populated than the Alamo Ranch area on the West Side. Not saying Alamo Ranch should be annexed, actually, I hope they win their fight to incorporate, just using it as an indicator as to the city's actual motivation.

It's a brilliant scheme if you think about it. The voters of SA pass "feel good" policies/programs that create debt. Then, when the debt grows too large, just do targeted annexation to increase property tax revenues to pay down the debt using tax dollars taken from people that didn't have a say in voting for/against the policies that created the debt they are now on the hook for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 08:14 PM
 
874 posts, read 1,163,346 times
Reputation: 1060
I find it not surprising at all that on mysanantio.com they editorialized in favor of annexation with a piece peppered with disinformation. They have also allowed only two comments while, as far as I can tell, other comments are being held back. I know that mine is. So much for objective journalism. You can read their editorial at link below:
Bills are a body blow to annexations - San Antonio Express-News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 04:05 AM
 
Location: Tejas
443 posts, read 782,324 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by L210 View Post
Those cities are mostly homogeneous when it comes to income. Considering that San Antonio is so large, it would be more fair to compare crime rates with parts of San Antonio that have similar demographics.
It's true of Balcones Heights, and that pretty much mirrors most of San Antonio demographic wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 11:14 AM
 
852 posts, read 929,120 times
Reputation: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by L210 View Post
Some of these annexations are needed. Bexar County has practically been begging San Antonio to annex the unincorporated part of the northeast side. It is a mess because counties in Texas are limited in the types of laws they can pass such as making it mandatory to have waste service.

This may be true for the northeast side but the county has already told us on the northwest side they'll continue to support us if annexation doesn't happen and they have the resources to do so. In our case, we are REQUIRED to have waste services per our HOA's. I'm just assuming the areas in the NE side doesn't have the restrictions we do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:32 PM
 
7,002 posts, read 10,275,808 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion View Post
It's true of Balcones Heights, and that pretty much mirrors most of San Antonio demographic wise.
Balcones Heights is less than one square mile and has a little over 3,000 people. Of course it's going to be an easy city to police. When it comes to income, Balcones Heights does not mirror San Antonio. It's a poor city. The demographics of the area mirror the part of San Antonio that surrounds it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRenaud View Post
This may be true for the northeast side but the county has already told us on the northwest side they'll continue to support us if annexation doesn't happen and they have the resources to do so. In our case, we are REQUIRED to have waste services per our HOA's. I'm just assuming the areas in the NE side doesn't have the restrictions we do?
They have no option but to support any area in their jurisdiction. If the northeast side is not annexed, Bexar County will still have to support it. The far west side doesn't have a trash issue, but its high population density covering such a large area makes it difficult to police. I've seen how BCSO struggles to serve the area. Their dispatch center even has difficulty handling the volume of calls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 02:16 PM
 
852 posts, read 929,120 times
Reputation: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by L210 View Post
Balcones Heights is less than one square mile and has a little over 3,000 people. Of course it's going to be an easy city to police. When it comes to income, Balcones Heights does not mirror San Antonio. It's a poor city. The demographics of the area mirror the part of San Antonio that surrounds it.



They have no option but to support any area in their jurisdiction. If the northeast side is not annexed, Bexar County will still have to support it. The far west side doesn't have a trash issue, but its high population density covering such a large area makes it difficult to police. I've seen how BCSO struggles to serve the area. Their dispatch center even has difficulty handling the volume of calls.
I've spoken to folks with BCSO and was told they WANT to keep AR. Could be due to the revenue stream they get from the area. I know I sure pay a pretty penny in taxes but it would be far worse if annexed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 02:38 PM
 
3,154 posts, read 5,186,437 times
Reputation: 1765
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRenaud View Post
I've spoken to folks with BCSO and was told they WANT to keep AR. Could be due to the revenue stream they get from the area. I know I sure pay a pretty penny in taxes but it would be far worse if annexed.
The County doesn't loose any taxes from areas that get annexed. City property owners still pay taxes to the County.

The County just doesn't have to service those annexed areas anymore, so I can't understand why the County wouldn't want those areas annexed.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > Texas > San Antonio
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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