Areas That Lake Charles Should Annex (city hall, homes, buying)

[CTtcg]

The red areas are places that the City of Lake Charles should annex. These are developed areas that are surrounded by the city, and would add to the tax base. For the most part they are residential. The green area is part of south Lake Charles, an area that continues to add homes and will for the the foreseeable future. Parts of it as well should be added to the city as it grows. This is the only way that this city will move beyond the 'small town' mentality. I estimate that the places surrounded by the city have around 3,000-4,000 citizens. Adding parts of the green area and beyond would add well over 10,000 to the population of the city.

[Polarvortex1415]

If they are outside of the tax base, what would be their incentive to annex?

[rgathrights]

Originally Posted by CTtcg

move beyond the 'small town' mentality. I estimate that the places surrounded by the city have around 3,000-4,000 citizens. Adding parts of the green area and beyond would add well over 10,000 to the population of the city.

CTtcg,
Nice to see someone talking about real community issues here! Let's have a constructive discussion for the benefit of all who read this forum and make this a great city!



Your argument is that by adding more developed areas to the city of Lake Charles, that they can improve their ‘small town’ mentality and improve the tax base.
The problem with your argument is:


1) Lake Charles is filled with many undeveloped, blighted areas. Growing the city of Lake Charles to increase taxes is only covering up what government employees are not doing.


2) If the City of Lake Charles and its residents worked harder to collect taxes on the blighted areas and encourage the community to work together to solve these issues by working in the community with the residents to solve these problems then the tax base would improve.


Solving this critical issue before growing Lake Charles city limits will not only bring in more taxes but also improve the population of the city natively without ever having to grow the city limits. With the SWLA economic alliance predicting an economic boom in less than 5 years, we could use more housing space in a part of town that is arguably vacant.


Simply adding more homes to the tax base only rewards the government for not solving this issue. Government would hire more 20 year pension liable staff, take on more tax bond funded projects and basically use it to incur more debt to address the needs of a larger city.


The attached photo represents several hundred properties in the city limits that have unpaid taxes for more than three years. Search the web or visit City Hall to inquire more about how you can help.

[CTtcg]

Originally Posted by Polarvortex1415

If they are outside of the tax base, what would be their incentive to annex?

They would be in by annexing.

[CTtcg]

1) Lake Charles is filled with many undeveloped, blighted areas. Growing the city of Lake Charles to increase taxes is only covering up what government employees are not doing.

I'm not suggesting that anyone cover up anything. On the contrary I want open transparent local government. There is a perception here that that's not always the case. So my question is what are government employees specifically not doing?

2) If the City of Lake Charles and its residents worked harder to collect taxes on the blighted areas and encourage the community to work together to solve these issues by working in the community with the residents to solve these problems then the tax base would improve.

I agree that the blighted areas need to be taken care of one way or another. These areas are lower-income, with poorer education. So there are other factors involved that are somewhat out of the city's direct control.

Solving this critical issue before growing Lake Charles city limits will not only bring in more taxes but also improve the population of the city natively without ever having to grow the city limits. With the SWLA economic alliance predicting an economic boom in less than 5 years, we could use more housing space in a part of town that is arguably vacant.

I agree with you here. In fact the city had a higher population of 75,000 in the 70s and 80s, and since the city limits have only grown from that time there is plenty of vacant land/room, especially for denser developments.

Simply adding more homes to the tax base only rewards the government for not solving this issue. Government would hire more 20 year pension liable staff, take on more tax bond funded projects and basically use it to incur more debt to address the needs of a larger city.

I disagree that it only rewards the government. And what issue are we trying to solve again? The city will be larger even if the city council did nothing in the next few years. So it might as well grow the city where it can, as well as in potential areas south of town, as well as solving the adjudicated properties issue.

The attached photo represents several hundred properties in the city limits that have unpaid taxes for more than three years. Search the web or visit City Hall to inquire more about how you can help.

I have no idea how I would personally help in this, but I would be eager to. (other than griping to city councilmen.)

[Polarvortex1415]

They can fight annexing. We live in an unincorporated area where annexing has been brought up. We hav successfully fought it for long enough that they gave up.

Louisiana requires a referendum and a vote if the area is inhabited. The area must also border the city doing the annexing on a 90% range (trying to figure out the best way to phrase that).

Louisiana is a very libertarian state, IMO. Annexing would only breed bad blood and inhospitality.

In other words, keep your grubby hands off my unincorporated property and find a real solution to your problem that I have nothing to do with.

Don't tread on me.

[pandorafan5687]

I understand some not wanting to annex, though I don't have an issue w/ annexation when done in a controlled manner. With that being said, where the hell do ppl get the idea that being outside of the city limits guarantees them total silence? Talk about entitlement.

[rgathrights]

Originally Posted by pandorafan5687

I understand some not wanting to annex, though I don't have an issue w/ annexation when done in a controlled manner. With that being said, where the hell do ppl get the idea that being outside of the city limits guarantees them total silence? Talk about entitlement.

Silence can only be found by owning many acres with NO TRESPASSING signs.

[Polarvortex1415]

Owning property outside city limits does guarantee silence! That is why people buy outside city limits!

Entitlement? Lol. That is such an odd choice of words. City folk are the ones "entitled"-- entitled enough to want to annex the unincorporated people minding their own business. (And for the admitted purpose of a money grab!!!!)

[Polarvortex1415]

Originally Posted by rgathrights

Silence can only be found by owning many acres with NO TRESPASSING signs.

Exactly! Right to privacy... Buying your own reasonable expectation of privacy. Read up on curtilege and the 4th amendment.