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.
They did.
They lobbied the state legislature to change the annexation law.
Maybe I lost my place in the back & forth...
But if I'm reading it right... the "cure" may be worse than the disease.
"They" need to keep trying for an annexation law that streamlines and clarifies the process
for areas **within** X miles of ____ and/or **within* planned growth areas near ____.
Streamline shouldn't mean "force"... but in the face of the obstinate and intransigent...
the folks with the carrot need to have a nice stick too.
This is a failed analogy because you'd never be able to hold a line... Each new annexation would just put a new group "1 mile from my city's city limits". It would never end.
Because it would never end does not make it a bad analogy. I thinki t never ending is kind of the point. As others have stated, that what allows cities to grow and keep the tax base expanding. Rather than people move out of the city into the suburbs taking their tax dollars with them and the cities decline. From what I've seen these forced annexation areas are already de facto part of the cities that annex them. I even know of an area that wasn't annexed where it was literally in the middle of the city and people were still fighting against it.
The thing I find humorous is about people opposed to annexation is they are also typically the first ones complaining when they have need of city services. Case in point the Hurricane last year, I knowof one county had to post a video explaining why the city residents had debris pick up while the county didn't because they had so many complaints and phone call s on the matter. The video basically stated that the people in the city pay more taxes for the services, less taxes means less services.
This is a failed analogy because you'd never be able to hold a line... Each new annexation would just put a new group "1 mile from my city's city limits". It would never end.
It is not just about distance. In order for a municipality to annex a new residential area, there is a minimum population density requirement.
Fayetteville had been abusing the old annexation laws, annexing nice subdivisions far from town and ignoring run down areas that are surrounded by city limits. It is just a power grab for more money.
Yes, Fayetteville ruined it for everyone and pretty much did what they have been accused of.
Most people protesting other instances of forced annexation are people living in somewhat dense neighborhoods just outside municipal borders and very much don't want to pay municipal taxes even though they benefit from a large proportion of the municipal services.
The state should have fixed the law to reduce the abuses instead of basically taking it off the books.
I hope that a change in the composition of the legislature will rectify the current's legislature's error. However, this is the type of thing that, once done, will be hard to repeal.
Because it would never end does not make it a bad analogy. I thinki t never ending is kind of the point. As others have stated, that what allows cities to grow and keep the tax base expanding. Rather than people move out of the city into the suburbs taking their tax dollars with them and the cities decline. From what I've seen these forced annexation areas are already de facto part of the cities that annex them. I even know of an area that wasn't annexed where it was literally in the middle of the city and people were still fighting against it.
The thing I find humorous is about people opposed to annexation is they are also typically the first ones complaining when they have need of city services. Case in point the Hurricane last year, I knowof one county had to post a video explaining why the city residents had debris pick up while the county didn't because they had so many complaints and phone call s on the matter. The video basically stated that the people in the city pay more taxes for the services, less taxes means less services.
Why do cities have to grow by expanding the tax base geographically? We both know they don't... in fact, I would argue it's just the laziest way and has the worst consequence. They should be looking to attract business and employers while developing vertically within their existing borders. Not to say they shouldn't expand where it's logical. But, allowing forced annexation will be advocating sprawl more then anything else - the housing developers will just continue to push out each time the lines are redrawn.
The existence of suburbs unto themselves do not cause cities to decline. It's frankly a ludicrous idea that you think it does. Sprawling cities out over large swaths of area with no serious planning to infrastructure reeks. Mass transit is something that immediately jumps to mind. If you can't provide me safe, dependable public transportation to your "city" where do you get off force annexing me? Per your link, which I don't feel proves anything - keep your other "services"... I'm not going to call the city to clean-up my trees, I'd call my county and/or get together with my neighbors. So please don't label all based on an isolated incident.
If they're "in the middle of the city" geographically like the other example you mention - ok, that seems logical. But I don't see how you push out 360 degrees in all directions just because a suburb gets "too dense" and is "taking advantage". Last I checked, I still pay taxes in the city whenever I shop in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recip
It is not just about distance. In order for a municipality to annex a new residential area, there is a minimum population density requirement.
Not good enough sorry... too much power if you allow forced annex on that criteria alone.
That is a totally fallacious argument, lol. That infrastructure is in place whether no one uses it or folks from other states use it. If you buy lunch, you are supporting local business and contributing to taxes. If you buy your groceries, gas, etc in the city limits, all that raises revenue.
Services that are affected by annexation can be such things as water, police, sewer, garbage pick up.
Lets look at this, I live in unincorporated Mecklenburg county, with a Charlotte address, this means I am not in the city of Charlotte.
We have Mecklenburg police force, I pay for this in my property taxes.
I have Charlotte city Water & sewer which I pay for, they bill me normally.
I have to pay for my own garbage pick up.
Now I live in a sub-division that has street lights and we pay for those out of our HOA, guess what if get annexed the City of Charlotte would have to pay for the street lights and maintain our roads and collect garbage.
My taxes would go up, by the time I take of the garbage payment, I believe it would equal out.
Then guess what the city of charlotte would then lose money when they start having to maintain our roads and pay for the street lights.
i have to say this perspective bothers me a bit. I think it's intellectually dishonest. I think these people just don't want to pay city taxes.
for example, i live about 1 mile from my city's city limits; I drive into town every day and spend most of my day there. I don't pay city property taxes. However, I drive on city streets, (which are drained by city stormwater, lit by city streetlights), use city sidewalks, enjoy city parks, city golf courses, the city dog parks and tennis courts, the shows at the city amphitheater, etc., so I'm ALREADY getting city services. If I get in a wreck in the city, it's city police that take care of it. The city taxpayers help fund police , for example, which takes pressure off the county taxpayers having to actually serve the city limits with the sherriff's office.
Annexing me would simply make me pay for the services I already use. THAT is why all of the "anti-annexation" people can say, "Don't annex me, I already have the services I need!" The reason annexation exists to begin with is because there is no practical way to prevent freeloaders like me from using city services.
Services that are affected by annexation can be such things as water, police, sewer, garbage pick up.
All of which are consumed by suburbanites who come into the city. The extra population in uptown Charlotte everyday creates trash, necessitates more police work, and uses a good deal of water. Business taxes pay for some of this, but certainly not much of it.
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.
