Dallas Skyline(WOW)Yes another Dallas to Houston comparison thread! (Fort Worth: tax, shop)

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by jxe103020

Actually, since the Lone Star series started in 2001 between the Rangers vs the lAstros, Rangers own them winning the boot 9-3. If you look at playoff success and overall record, the Rangers easily outperform the LAstros since the early 90's. I personally cannot wait until they join the AL West next year.

If you really want to rank Texas professional teams by sport here it is:
Football - Dallas Cowboys
Basketball - San Antonio Spurs
Baseball - Texas Rangers (2 WS appearances vs Houston's 1)
Hockey - Only one city in Texas has a pro hockey team

No, the Rangers do not own the Astros since the 90s. That's laughable because the Astros have consistently put out much better teams than the Rangers until two years ago.. Since 2010, yes, the Rangers have been better while the Astros had ****ty ownership. Don't worry tho, the Astros are turning it around. They have a great GM who made St. Louis the team they were for years. They are still two to three years away from contending.

[jxe103020]

Originally Posted by Trae713

No, the Rangers do not own the Astros since the 90s. That's laughable because the Astros have consistently put out much better teams than the Rangers until two years ago.. Since 2010, yes, the Rangers have been better while the Astros had ****ty ownership. Don't worry tho, the Astros are turning it around. They have a great GM who made St. Louis the team they were for years. They are still two to three years away from contending.

If the LAstros have put up better teams why have the Rangers won the boot 9 times out of 12?

And you don't think the Rangers had bad ownership?? They were in bankruptcy and were purchased by Nolan Ryan's investment group the year they went to their first WS. Now with the Rangers new ownership, they finally have the capability to spend big money like other big market teams. Houston won't come close to winning the division for the next 7 years. The Rangers farm system is STACKED with talent.

I wish we had more of a rivalry with Houston in every pro sport (typically because we've dominated all teams from Houston over the past 10 years).

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by jxe103020

If the LAstros have put up better teams why have the Rangers won the boot 9 times out of 12?

And you don't think the Rangers had bad ownership?? They were in bankruptcy and were purchased by Nolan Ryan's investment group the year they went to their first WS. Now with the Rangers new ownership, they finally have the capability to spend big money like other big market teams. Houston won't come close to winning the division for the next 7 years. The Rangers farm system is STACKED with talent.

I wish we had more of a rivalry with Houston in every pro sport (typically because we've dominated all teams from Houston over the past 10 years).

Winning the boot does not make the Rangers a better team. Final records do. That's like saying the Rockets are better than the Thunder because they beat them during the regular season. Yes, Rangers bad ownership led them through crappy years. Astros bad ownership had some successful years, but then McLame tried to keep a sinking ship afloat instead of keeping the farm system intact. Now, the Astros have Luhnow, who has a great track record as a GM, and Jim Crane as the owner who let's the baseball people do baseball. The Rangers had their chance of winning the world series being one strike away twice. The Angels are nothing to joke with and the Rangers may lose Hamilton(among others), and their stars are injury prone and old (Astros are the youngest team in the MLB). By 2014, the Astros top prospects will be coming up all at around the same time. They drafted four first round talents in this draft by manipulating the cap. Basically, they will be in the same situation in a few years.

[JJG]

While we're on baseball..... it's really gonna suck when the Astros swich over to the AL.

No chance for an all Texas World Series.

[R1070]

Originally Posted by 7ry1an3

Thats why Houston will always be #1 in Texas, its international. Its geographical location alone will always give it the upper hand on just about everything. Hell Dallas (Not Dallas and Fort Worth Combined) is still behind San Antonio in population. Houston is a true American and international city. Dallas is a Texas Stereotype. Dallas has Texas on its mind while Houston has the world. And space.

yes that's an eye roll. how many times are people going to beat this Dallas city population thing to death? Yes, San Antonio and Houston have larger populations within the city limits than Dallas. Yes, both Houston and SA have larger square miles of their city limits which we all know makes the population larger. Yes, Dallas' population is smaller because the city limits are smaller and suburbs take up the slack. And finally yes we all know that the Dallas area has a much larger population than SA and the actual city population doesn't matter. Moving along now.

[savanite]

Originally Posted by R1070

yes that's an eye roll. how many times are people going to beat this Dallas city population thing to death? Yes, San Antonio and Houston have larger populations within the city limits than Dallas. Yes, both Houston and SA have larger square miles of their city limits which we all know makes the population larger. Yes, Dallas' population is smaller because the city limits are smaller and suburbs take up the slack. And finally yes we all know that the Dallas area has a much larger population than SA and the actual city population doesn't matter. Moving along now.

You might make the point that the Houston and San Antonio governments are too large for their respective metros.

The central municipality of most American metros are between 10 and 15 percent of the metro. Dallas is a little oversized at 18%, and municipal Fort Worth is way too large.

The best reason for that is that the area of a metro within a few miles of the downtown is of a different nature and has different problems than the more low density suburban neighborhoods farther out. If Houston contracted its city limits to the inner loop, it could focus its resources there, rather than have them bled into the areas farther out. Of course that's what it's doing with the light rail system now.

In Europe the farther out you go from downtown, the less desirable the land and housing. Being close to the heart of the city, where the "action is" is an asset. Of course the same is true for American cities such as New York, San Francisco, Boston, etc.. That actually seems to be the case for Houston, where everything is concentrated within the loop, and in Dallas, where the most expensive areas are close to downtown (uptown, Highland Park, Lakewood, Kessler Park, etc.)

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by savanite

If Houston contracted its city limits to the inner loop, it could focus its resources there, rather than have them bled into the areas farther out.

I wonder if a city could "unannex" places it had already swallowed lol.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

I wonder if a city could "unannex" places it had already swallowed lol.

Break offs do hapoen buf are rare.

[savanite]

I think it's entirely possible, although unlikely, for Houston to contract to the inner loop.

How would the inner loop gain from this?

I don't have any numbers, but I surmise that the total tax revenues, property, sales and other municipal taxes, from the inner loop are larger per capita than other parts of Houston. This means that the inner loop is getting less of a bang for its buck than if it were administratively independent. If its tax revenues could be spent entirely within its own territory, the area would be better off, more desirable, and attract an even more prosperous population, thus increasing tax revenues per capita even higher.

Property values would improve quite a bit, since the area would have better public services, and land inside the loop would have a better defined "scarcity value". If the Park Cities in Dallas were to be incorporated into the Dallas government, or if Beverly Hills were annexed into Los Angeles, they would lose some of their desirability from lack of definition. Formally defining the inner Loop as its own municipal government would enhance its definition as a unique and desirable place, increase competition to live there, and raise its value and tax revenue.

In Dallas, deteriorating single family neighborhoods are in independent inner ring suburbs, so the governments of those suburbs do not drain monies from more desirable, and wealthier, areas such as Uptown, Lakewood, M Streets, Kessler Park, and Oak Lawn. The Dallas case is not a perfect example, of course, since it's poshest area, the Park Cities, is already independent of Dallas, and Dallas already has many lower income areas inside its boundary.

Can a municipal government de-annex part of its territory? Anything is possible, although I agree it would be difficult and unlikely. I am presenting this scenario, though, as a counter argument to the idea that a more populous municipal government is somehow "better", has more bragging rights, than a smaller one.

And I do understand that politicians like to rule over as many people as possible, that politics is a numbers game.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by savanite

I think it's entirely possible, although unlikely, for Houston to contract to the inner loop.

How would the inner loop gain from this?

I don't have any numbers, but I surmise that the total tax revenues, property, sales and other municipal taxes, from the inner loop are larger per capita than other parts of Houston. This means that the inner loop is getting less of a bang for its buck than if it were administratively independent. If its tax revenues could be spent entirely within its own territory, the area would be better off, more desirable, and attract an even more prosperous population, thus increasing tax revenues per capita even higher.

Property values would improve quite a bit, since the area would have better public services, and land inside the loop would have a better defined "scarcity value". If the Park Cities in Dallas were to be incorporated into the Dallas government, or if Beverly Hills were annexed into Los Angeles, they would lose some of their desirability from lack of definition. Formally defining the inner Loop as its own municipal government would enhance its definition as a unique and desirable place, increase competition to live there, and raise its value and tax revenue.

In Dallas, deteriorating single family neighborhoods are in independent inner ring suburbs, so the governments of those suburbs do not drain monies from more desirable, and wealthier, areas such as Uptown, Lakewood, M Streets, Kessler Park, and Oak Lawn. The Dallas case is not a perfect example, of course, since it's poshest area, the Park Cities, is already independent of Dallas, and Dallas already has many lower income areas inside its boundary.

Can a municipal government de-annex part of its territory? Anything is possible, although I agree it would be difficult and unlikely. I am presenting this scenario, though, as a counter argument to the idea that a more populous municipal government is somehow "better", has more bragging rights, than a smaller one.

And I do understand that politicians like to rule over as many people as possible, that politics is a numbers game.

Yeah, Dallas' case isn't a good example. Inner Loop Houston would be nothing like Beverly Hills or Park Cities if it were its own city. Those are just high class residential areas with some high end retail. Houston's Park Cities/Beverly Hills is in its city limits and the Inner Loop already has West U., Bellaire, etc. as their own cities within the loop. And not all of the independent inner ring suburbs of Dallas are deteriorating. Richardson is holding steady and holds a big businesses on its north side. Irving has Las Colinas, Plano is pretty much an Inner Ring suburb now and has large corporate centers. I don't think those suburbs are going down. The Richardson/Irving/Plano of Houston is Westchase and the Energy Corridor. And like you said, Dallas has plenty of low income areas inside its city limits, most of which are in South Dallas.

I'm not seeing an advantage at all from contracting the city limits to just the 610 loop. I do see advantage in continuing to release the ETJ to let some of these suburbs form their own cities (if residents in those places want it). Property values are already increasing in and around the inner loop even though the COH limits are large and there is already a fight to get into there (with the huge amount of apartments going up in the inner loop). Even past Uptown a little bit.