Theoretical - Gilbert annexed by Chandler or Mesa

[man4857]

Originally Posted by KurtAZ

As the most Prosperous City in the US, Gilbert must be taken down a notch and equality instituted!

They're not going down without a fight kicking and screaming all the way.

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by man4857

They're not going down without a fight kicking and screaming all the way.

You got that right! Lol...

[Pink Jazz]

Originally Posted by belgirl

You got that right! Lol...

To become immune from annexation by Mesa or Chandler, they should just become a city already.

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz

To become immune from annexation by Mesa or Chandler, they should just become a city already.

Yeah, the residents have been very vocal about staying as a "town" because they feel it still gives the message that Gilbert is focused on neighborhoods and communities. I don't have an opinion on it either way at this point--my feeling is they will become a city anyways eventually. There are pros and cons to both.

[ShampooBanana]

Originally Posted by belgirl

Yeah, the residents have been very vocal about staying as a "town" because they feel it still gives the message that Gilbert is focused on neighborhoods and communities. I don't have an opinion on it either way at this point--my feeling is they will become a city anyways eventually. There are pros and cons to both.

The pros of city status are more related to having certain home rule powers and eligibility for certain State and Federal financial assistance and programs. There are no real benefits to having Town status versus City aside from image.

[belgirl]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

The pros of city status are more related to having certain home rule powers and eligibility for certain State and Federal financial assistance and programs. There are no real benefits to having Town status versus City aside from image.

Actually, there is no preference given to cities when it comes to federal grants or federal assistance. All federal money is allocated based on population size, not the title a community holds. In a city, you can split into districts for elections; whereas in a town you can't. Pros and cons to this. Plus a city can develop a charter. This can be considered by some as restrictive because getting policies changed can be difficult.

The image perception does have pros and cons as well. "Town" can come across as family-friendly but also as "po-dunk." It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz

To become immune from annexation by Mesa or Chandler, they should just become a city already.

Gilbert won't be annexed. Besides, you may be correct in theory that a "city" can legally annex an incorporated "town", but it rarely happens, especially a place as big as Gilbert. In just about all cases, cities annex unincorporated land which might be a census designated place. On top of all this, there has been more than enough annexation by the city of Phoenix and many suburbs over the years that it has become overkill. Enough already! I'd actually be in favor of some deannexation more than continuously gulping up more land.

Originally Posted by belgirl

The image perception does have pros and cons as well. "Town" can come across as family-friendly but also as "po-dunk." It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.

That's exactly how it comes across: family oriented, yet small and Mayberryesque. Gilbert must be the largest "town" in the nation when it comes to population. It's as if they like the rapid growth but still want to retain the small town image that no longer exists ... which is rather hypocritical as far as I'm concerned.