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.
I have to admit I was slightly surprise to learn of how some of the unicorporated areas and small cities outside of some the major SC cities have grown over the past decade.
According to City Database.. the unicorporated area of Dutch Fork outside of Columbia has a population of 59,332 which would make it large than the City of Greenville at 56,002???? Pontiac (which is basically the eastern portion of NE Columbia near Two Notch at Clemson Rd) is unicorporated and boasts 43,972 and Horrell Hill unicorporated with 11,439 has eclipsed the Town of Irmo at 11,039 and St. Andrews (Richland County) is still a hefty 21,814 souls.
On the City front suburban cities like Mt. Pleasant (47,609), Summerville (39,647) and Taylors (20,125) have doubled or trippled in population
What is interesting is that some of these unincorporated areas have resisted annexation into the neighboring cities for fear of higher taxes and losing their identity. The irony is that some of these same areas have failed at the hands of the same residents to incorporate and become independent jurisdicitions, which could preserve their identity and give them more control over their community. Of course that too could come with the price of higher taxes. By there sheer population numbers and often times the commercial tax base that follows, some of these unincorporated areas are continuing to become major players in the economies of their respective counties and ultimately the State
It is interesting to me the contrast in annexation laws between SC and NC; they are polar opposite. NC has "forced annexation", where a city can annex an adjacent developed area, whether the residents there like it or not. It tends to upset people, but it makes for more orderly urban planning and more logical regulations.
I don't know the nitty-gritty of SC's laws, but I know that they require consent from residents, and that it is very difficult to annex. It is very difficult to convince people to accept higher taxes for more services, and it is downright impossible to convince people that their development and growth needs to be more tightly regulated for the sake of the environment, among other reasons. Personally, I think SC's annexation laws are shortsighted and somewhat ideological.
It is interesting to me the contrast in annexation laws between SC and NC; they are polar opposite. NC has "forced annexation", where a city can annex an adjacent developed area, whether the residents there like it or not. It tends to upset people, but it makes for more orderly urban planning and more logical regulations.
I don't know the nitty-gritty of SC's laws, but I know that they require consent from residents, and that it is very difficult to annex. It is very difficult to convince people to accept higher taxes for more services, and it is downright impossible to convince people that their development and growth needs to be more tightly regulated for the sake of the environment, among other reasons. Personally, I think SC's annexation laws are shortsighted and somewhat ideological.
One thing at least Columbia has started to focus on is if new developments (and some existing) want the city's water, they have to agree to be annexed. I agree w/you about some of SC laws being shortsighted, there are so many pockets of unincorporated areas being surrounded by corporated areas that cause confusion between fire, police, etc. I think at some point as in NC, if an area is deemed to be developed to the point it's clearly an urban area, it should be easily annexed. Columbia's population could easily double if this occured - and as your population increases, your federal funding increases as well as the recognition you receive around the country and world.
One thing at least Columbia has started to focus on is if new developments (and some existing) want the city's water, they have to agree to be annexed. I agree w/you about some of SC laws being shortsighted, there are so many pockets of unincorporated areas being surrounded by corporated areas that cause confusion between fire, police, etc. I think at some point as in NC, if an area is deemed to be developed to the point it's clearly an urban area, it should be easily annexed. Columbia's population could easily double if this occured - and as your population increases, your federal funding increases as well as the recognition you receive around the country and world.
I agree that Columbia is taking the right approach though some feel it is heavy handed...but if the City is providing the water.. they have the right control who gets it in an effort to manage growth, resources and not to expand too rapidly that it cost the existing city residents more.The other approach, though more devious, is to jack up the water rates for those outside of the City. Again that would force people in though they definately some would not be happy about it. As you mentioned.. many of these "urban" unincorporated areas are at the mercy of their respective Counties... whose focus tend to cover hundreds of square miles and occasionally includes small towns that may lack the ability to provide their own services. If you are in an unincorporated urban/developed area next city or town that is at least large enough to provide its own services it would appear that you would be more effective in bring resources to bear in your neighborhood by annexing because you would be dealing with the level of government(or elected official) that is closest level to you. It seems that distance between the government and the people increases as you go up the scale (city to county to state, and then federal) Living in the City of Columbia.. I am entitled to certain services from Richland County since I am a resident and pay taxes to both. If I had a neighborhood issue..quite naturally I would seek to engage the City because that is the level of government closest to me and I would probably be more effective at getting the City's attention as opposed to Richland County whose purview extends over not only the City, but a larger area with very divergent interest (i.e. Rural and Urban)
The problem is that when the annexation laws were first put in place, the majority of residents lived in smaller and mid-sized towns far from the larger urban centers. Believe it or not, the purpose of the annexation laws was to keep things organized. Back in the day, the idea was to keep everything neat and compact in town, and have farms and such outside of said town. This was to keep a check and balance between farmland and the towns themselves. Also keep in mind that it was also to encourage more walking and less automobile reliance.
However, there is no way lawmakers of those days could possibly have predicted the growth that SC cities would incur over the years. That is not to say that annexation regulates growth at all, it actually can make it much worse. Both encourage reckless sprawl, something that we really don't need more of.
Plus in SC, we prefer to have local control of our politics. It is better for representation, but it makes it difficult to cooperate with neighboring districts or in this case metro areas. Good luck trying to enact a law that forces residents to accept more taxes and regulation in what could be one of the most Libertarian states in the country (as far as economics goes).
The problem is that when the annexation laws were first put in place, the majority of residents lived in smaller and mid-sized towns far from the larger urban centers. Believe it or not, the purpose of the annexation laws was to keep things organized. Back in the day, the idea was to keep everything neat and compact in town, and have farms and such outside of said town. This was to keep a check and balance between farmland and the towns themselves. Also keep in mind that it was also to encourage more walking and less automobile reliance.
However, there is no way lawmakers of those days could possibly have predicted the growth that SC cities would incur over the years. That is not to say that annexation regulates growth at all, it actually can make it much worse. Both encourage reckless sprawl, something that we really don't need more of.
Plus in SC, we prefer to have local control of our politics. It is better for representation, but it makes it difficult to cooperate with neighboring districts or in this case metro areas. Good luck trying to enact a law that forces residents to accept more taxes and regulation in what could be one of the most Libertarian states in the country (as far as economics goes).
I'm sorry the "farms outside of town" thing is just not true- at least not for SC. A great example of that is the state's population density for "Farmland", 1 dwelling per 1/4 acre. That's ridiculous!
What is spot-on about this post is the wanting local control of politics. Local elites (the Bourbons in the Lowcountry; Pitchfork Ben's compadres in the Upcountry) tend to treat "their" municipalities like fifedoms.
Hence the impossible annexation laws, and the vast undercount of cities (v metro areas) like Charleston, etc.
I'm sorry the "farms outside of town" thing is just not true- at least not for SC. A great example of that is the state's population density for "Farmland", 1 dwelling per 1/4 acre. That's ridiculous!
What is spot-on about this post is the wanting local control of politics. Local elites (the Bourbons in the Lowcountry; Pitchfork Ben's compadres in the Upcountry) tend to treat "their" municipalities like fifedoms.
Hence the impossible annexation laws, and the vast undercount of cities (v metro areas) like Charleston, etc.
Some time ago in the Charleston area..did an unicorporated area sue the City of Charleston to keep it off of one of the islands? I can not remember which one..But I agree that many towns become fifedomes for some politicos who run them accordingly. Case in point.. the Columbia Metro... Things have gotten alot better over the years.. but there was a time where it would have been very difficult to get the Mayor of Irmo and Columbia, Richland County and Lexington County Councils in the same room to work on anything. Columbia was beginning the big push to create the Vista and find a location for the convention center. There was interest in all the local jurisdiction pitching in to build it and because the "preferred" site was in Columbia many of the neighboring jursidictions wanted to take their marbles and go home. Of course no town wants to necessarily pay for something that may be in another town but the success of the Convention Center and the Vista has spilled over to Cayce and West Columbia (i.e. Lexington). Additionaly, the fact that any increase in use of the convention center could benefit the Cola Airport which is also in Lexington County and the City of Cayce assuming they share the revenue of that "fees" that is tacked on to your car rental. I do think that slowly most of the new leadership in many of these cities/ counties do recognize the benefit of "regionalism" but it does take time...though things like the city bus system still sting at times.
I am not as familiar with how everybody plays on the playground down in Charleston. North Charleston, Mt. Pleasant, Goose Creek, Hanahan, Summerville. All are good size SC cities that adjoin one another... and I am curious on if things are better than in the Cola Metro. in terms of regional cooperation?
It is interesting to me the contrast in annexation laws between SC and NC; they are polar opposite. NC has "forced annexation", where a city can annex an adjacent developed area, whether the residents there like it or not. It tends to upset people, but it makes for more orderly urban planning and more logical regulations.
I don't know the nitty-gritty of SC's laws, but I know that they require consent from residents, and that it is very difficult to annex. It is very difficult to convince people to accept higher taxes for more services, and it is downright impossible to convince people that their development and growth needs to be more tightly regulated for the sake of the environment, among other reasons. Personally, I think SC's annexation laws are shortsighted and somewhat ideological.
I totally agree and I think the difficulty of annexation has held South Carolina's cities back. The funny think about the "more taxes" argument is that it isn't true. By the time you figure in having to pay for trash collection, higher water rates and higher insurance premiums, it is cheaper to live in the limits of the central city than in an unincorporated region.
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.
