atlanta city limits versus jacksonville city limits (Dunwoody, Kennesaw: public schools, estimate)

[cqholt]

If Gwinnett and Cobb get as unwieldy and inefficient in their county governments, let them follow suit as well.

Well after the Coolray Field incident, Gwinnett is well on its way to becoming as inefficient as Fulton and DeKalb.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

this is what i'm talking about y'all— atlanta's city limits are tiny and we have segregated government. the city of atlanta needs to straighten up and fly right— there's no reason our city limits should be this small and have such little impact on the surrounding area— i think this is the main reason overdevelopment has run rampant in cobb, gwinnett and now forsyth.

Why...oh why...do people continue to spew this mantra? Why is a mega-city limit and gov't entity somehow inherently better? Why would expanding the failing Atlanta Public Schools to say...Cobb County... in this new expanded city structure be better for me or my children?

If you look at many other cities, Boston being a perfect example that I'm familiar with, the "main" city is a small geographic area, and many smaller cities and towns surround the main city. The smaller cities have their own gov't, including schools, police, fire, etc. Better local control and more granular gov't is not a bad thing. I am perplexed by the penchant that some of you exhibit for a monster City of Atlanta that encompasses all of the metro area. My guess is this is politically motivated, and that you want to suck the tax dollars out of the suburban areas to use for pet projects in the urban areas.

There is a reason all of the north Fulton, some of South Fulton, and Dunwoody opted to form new cities within the last 6 years. Many of you seem blind to those issues and turn a deaf ear in your quest for a mega-city gov't entity.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Why...oh why...do people continue to spew this mantra? Why is a mega-city limit and gov't entity somehow inherently better?

I completely agree. There's room for hundreds of thousands of new residents in the city of Atlanta.

The trick is attracting them, and you do that by making the quality of life desirable. That has already happened in many parts of the city. For example, the central neighborhoods (NPUs B, E and D) all grew by nearly 25%. Schools are outstanding, crime is low and transportation is the best in the region. Shopping and other amenities are top flight. That's why intown real estate commands high prices.

So the idea of enlarging the city limits is not only of dubious value, it's simply unnecessary. The critical mission for cities is to make themselves better, not bigger.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Why...oh why...do people continue to spew this mantra? Why is a mega-city limit and gov't entity somehow inherently better? Why would expanding the failing Atlanta Public Schools to say...Cobb County... in this new expanded city structure be better for me or my children?

If you look at many other cities, Boston being a perfect example that I'm familiar with, the "main" city is a small geographic area, and many smaller cities and towns surround the main city. The smaller cities have their own gov't, including schools, police, fire, etc. Better local control and more granular gov't is not a bad thing. I am perplexed by the penchant that some of you exhibit for a monster City of Atlanta that encompasses all of the metro area. My guess is this is politically motivated, and that you want to suck the tax dollars out of the suburban areas to use for pet projects in the urban areas.

There is a reason all of the north Fulton, some of South Fulton, and Dunwoody opted to form new cities within the last 6 years. Many of you seem blind to those issues and turn a deaf ear in your quest for a mega-city gov't entity.

Well....I actually think its not a bad idea. The worse case scenario, in the long run, is that class and race or race and class will create a situation where the poor are concentrated in the city and cannot afford, via their tax dollars, to fund quality schools, infrastructure, services and the like. The city eventually decays, becomes crime ridden and divested.....and tarnishes the image of the entire region making it difficult to attract business and talent to the area.

The thing is that poor people don't have the resources to maintain a world class or domestic class city. Its like an area leaves its signiture selling point to be maintained by revenue from the poor.....and when the poor do a poor job of maintenance the city then sells a bad image for the area and eventually those who seek to isolate their earnings and taxes in the suburbs eventually get impacted negatively when the whole region suffers from the reputation of the city.

Every America city should learn from the lessons of Detroit on how NOT polorize an area by race and class. You have to look at yourself as being in the same boat and not 50 seperate boats all just looking out for themselves. When that is the case the whole region will suffer eventually.

[JoeP]

Why...oh why...do people continue to spew this mantra?

Metros benefit from the city without paying into city services or paying for the burden.

An expanded city would have a larger tax base.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Metros benefit from the city without paying into city services or paying for the burden.

An expanded city would have a larger tax base.

Are you suggesting that the City of Atlanta currently gains nothing at all from the 5 million residents which live outside of its borders?

Or that it receives no benefit at all from the hundreds of businesses or from the Atlanta airport, which also lie outside its current boundaries?

A successful metropolitan area involves a lot of give and take between the core city (or cities) and its suburbs. Such things hardly travel in one direction, and I would be willing to surmise that the City of Atlanta has a tendency to gain more from the surrounding communities than it gives back to them, at least at this point in time.

[JoeP]

Are you suggesting that the City of Atlanta currently gains nothing at all from the 5 million residents which live outside of its borders?

No. Did I say that? No. I merely pointed out that that cities benefit from an expanded tax base. Outside of a relatively recent infill/condo boom (prior to recession), neighborhoods mature and grow old etc.

Being landlocked prevents maintaining and growing in many ways.

and I would be willing to surmise that the City of Atlanta has a tendency to gain more from the surrounding communities than it gives back to them, at least at this point in time.

If that can be presented great, otherwise, I would surmise no way in hell.

[cqholt]

from the Atlanta airport, which also lie outside its current boundaries

There is a piece of city limits within the airport.

City of Atlanta has a tendency to gain more from the surrounding communities than it gives back to them, at least at this point in time.

I would have to disagree. It is even in my opinion. The City of Atlanta has the majority of company HQ in the metro, has all the professional sports teams, concentration of tourist attractions, the convention center, concentration of cultural centers and events, and the majority of hotels. The suburbs offer people the ability in live in prefabricated neighborhoods with good schools, while having the ability to drive to the city and visit "big city" things and be home that night.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by JoeP

No. Did I say that? No. I merely pointed out that that cities benefit from an expanded tax base. Outside of a relatively recent infill/condo boom (prior to recession), neighborhoods mature and grow old etc.

Being landlocked prevents maintaining and growing in many ways.

You said:

"Metros benefit from the city without paying into city services or paying for the burden."

Sounds like "metros benefit from the city without contributing back" to me, but if my interpretation is incorrect, I apologize.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by cqholt

There is a piece of city limits within the airport.

Oh, you're right. I see on Google Maps (if you enter a city name, it shows the formal boundaries) that there's a little island of the City of Atlanta inside of the airport. I sit corrected.

I would have to disagree. It is even in my opinion. The City of Atlanta has the majority of company HQ in the metro, has all the professional sports teams, concentration of tourist attractions, the convention center, concentration of cultural centers and events, and the majority of hotels. The suburbs offer people the ability in live in prefabricated neighborhoods with good schools, while having the ability to drive to the city and visit "big city" things and be home that night.

The typical suburb offers a tad more than just housing. You should visit one sometime. I would also be surprised if a significant percentage of suburbanites travelled downtown on a regular basis for entertainment outside of the pro sports stuff. We go into Atlanta occasionally, but it's less than once a month, and we go out a lot.

Significant concentrations of tourist attractions and entertainment venues exist outside of the city. Cobb County alone has Six Flags, Six Flags Whitewater, Cobb Energy Center, the Mable House Amphitheatre and several other smaller live stage venues, Kennesaw Mountain and environs, a sizable chunk of park along the Chattahoochee, and much of Lake Ackworth. And that's just Cobb County

I think you overestimate Atlanta's influence. I probably underestimate it, since it has little impact on my own life. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But I think your view of suburbs, at least as stated above, is not as accurate as it could be.