Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doctor Whom]

In some Virginia cities, the city relies on the Commonwealth's Attorney from an adjoining jurisdiction.  The Commonwealth's Attorney for Prince William County also serves the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park; and the Commonwealth's Attorney for Fairfax County also serves the City of Fairfax.

Cities in Virginia used to be classified into cities of the second class, which shared court systems and certain constitutional officers with adjacent counties, and cities of the first class, which were completely independent.  When the distinction was abolished, cities that had been cities of the second class were allowed to continue the arrangement.

[StogieGuy7]

I'm surprised that never got challenged in court.  Shoestring annexations like that (especially under water) usually get challenged around here.

Closer to home (and I see that you're a fellow Illini), take a look at the shenanagans that Gurnee and Waukegan both pulled during the 1980s and 1990s.  Waukegan grabbed a bunch of multi-million dollar properties in a narrow strip along River and O'Plaine roads (south of IL-120) well into an area that was previously known as "unincorporated Libertyville".  Those property owners were/are furious about it and their property values dived by 30% overnight.  For those who don't know, Waukegan is a dump.  Furthermore, on a map, it basically looks as if Waukegan sprouted a leg and reached out to grab up these wealthy properties to shore up their declining tax base.  They weren't even in the same township, not that it matters.

Then there's Gurnee, which has grown geographically by leaps and bounds, also grabbing up affluent areas south of IL-120 that thought they bought into (affluent) Libertyville.  Merit Club (where Michael Jordan golfs) and the neighborhoods around it come to mind.

In neither case did the property owners support annexation, but it was shoved down their throats anyhow.  Even middle-income neighborhoods with houses worth $250k saw property taxes increase by $1800/yr. overnight - just for the "honor" of being annexed by the Village of Gurnee.  With no additional services to show for it.  That's right: none.  Trade the county sheriff (who does a good job) for the a-holes on the Gurnee PD and everything else stays the same. 

Annexation in Illinois can be incredibly crooked.  These are merely 2 examples that I know of. 

[Road Hog]

Some states permit cities to expand across county lines while others don't--Kansas does (which is why Manhattan extends out of Riley and into Pottawatomie county), but Nebraska doesn't (my Nebraska relatives say this is why Omaha hasn't annexed Bellevue).

The city of Dallas extends into Collin, Denton, Rockwall and Kaufman counties. The latter two thanks to Lake Ray Hubbard, which is entirely within Dallas city limits.

And in Texas, school district boundaries and city boundaries are independent of each other. Prosper ISD students, for example, come from the city limits of Frisco, Little Elm, Celina and McKinney.

[Mike D boy]

According to the US census, the fastest growing city in California was Santa Clarita, located 30 miles north of Los Angeles (the LA city limits to the south), with a gain of 15 percent over the year 2012 from annexation of unincorporated residential areas. Same is true for my hometown Indio, which was the state's 5th fastest growing to added 4 percent by annexation. The housing bubble burst in the late 2000's slowed construction of new homes and sales of existing homes, the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.

[agentsteel53]

the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.

so unemployed people are less sexy?

[Mike D boy]

the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.

so unemployed people are less sexy?

LOL, agentsteel   Cities throughout Cal. grew slower as a result, and some cities opted to annex nearby county jurisdiction areas for purposes to generate more tax revenue, and these newly-annexed neighborhoods may wanted city public services to serve them.

The leading areas of population growth in the early 2010's was the San Francisco bay area (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara) counties where the heart of the global high-tech economy is; while the bedroom community-suburban Riverside and San Bernardino counties of southern California remained in the top 10 fast-growing list. The three counties north of Sacramento: Placer (i.e. Roseville), Sutter and Yuba (the Yuba City area) too.

[empirestate]

According to the US census, the fastest growing city in California was Santa Clarita, located 30 miles north of Los Angeles (the LA city limits to the south), with a gain of 15 percent over the year 2012 from annexation of unincorporated residential areas. Same is true for my hometown Indio, which was the state's 5th fastest growing to added 4 percent by annexation. The housing bubble burst in the late 2000's slowed construction of new homes and sales of existing homes, the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.

You mentioned the unincorporated areas annexed by these cities; did they also annex any prominent incorporated areas?

[DTComposer]

According to the US census, the fastest growing city in California was Santa Clarita, located 30 miles north of Los Angeles (the LA city limits to the south), with a gain of 15 percent over the year 2012 from annexation of unincorporated residential areas. Same is true for my hometown Indio, which was the state's 5th fastest growing to added 4 percent by annexation. The housing bubble burst in the late 2000's slowed construction of new homes and sales of existing homes, the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.

To be completely picky, the estimates to which you are referring came from the California Department of Finance, not the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau's latest estimates for cities should come out sometime this month; while there should be no reason to think their estimate will be much different in this case, the two agencies have in the past differed quite wildly. California has generally estimated higher than the Census Bureau; the 2000 Census showed the state estimates during the 1990s were closer to reality, while the 2010 Census showed the federal estimates during the 2000s were closer to reality.

You mentioned the unincorporated areas annexed by these cities; did they also annex any prominent incorporated areas?

No. Santa Clarita was originally formed from several comparable, distinct, but unincorporated towns (Valencia, Newhall, and Saugus among others) and has continued to annex developed, but unincorporated areas in the Santa Clarita Valley.

[vtk]

Columbus absorbed the older settlement Franklinton across the river early in the 19th century. Neither were "major" by today's standards, but Franklinton was the county seat, and I believe it was roughly in competition with Westerville and Newark as the largest settlement in central Ohio.  Columbus, on the other hand, was a brand-new planned city, plopped down artificially to become the new capital.

[Mike D boy]

Thanks for correcting me on the information source, DT. Both state and federal population estimates will vary, until we know for sure the exact populations, like the US census held every 10 years. City and county governments need to upkeep on projected populations to better serve their jurisdictions to upgrade public services for the common good.

The reason why Los Angeles annexed a great deal of land (i.e. the formerly incorporated communities of Hollywood, Watts, Venice and San Pedro) and the then-rural agrarian San Fernando Valley which was mostly urbanized by the late 1940's has much to do with acquisition of rights of water supply services, especially after the completion of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. In San Pedro's case has more to do with the opening of the Port of Los Angeles adjacent to the port of Long Beach. The city of L.A. is over 500 (504?) square miles (470 land, 34 water) and home to 3.8-3.9 million inhabitants.

Two other US cities: Oklahoma City, OK (it's city limits extends to rural expense of land to 621 square miles) and a greater municipal claim of undeveloped land is Juneau, Alaska at 3,255 square miles! larger than the tiny states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Both cities are state capitals, yet Juneau also an Alaskan borough with a total population of 32,000 is only less than one percent developed.

[texaskdog]

It seems that many of the most important cities in the U.S., at one time in their history, annexed a neighboring city of comparable prominence (by the standards of the time). The most famous example, of course, is the 1898 annexation of Brooklyn by New York. Other notable examples are Charlestown by Boston (1874) and Allegheny by Pittsburgh (1911). What other examples are there of city pairs, at one point more or less equal, that became a single city by this process? Are there any major examples more recent than 1911?

Also, what are some instances that didn't happen? For example, San Francisco never annexed Oakland, probably because while cross-water examples are apparently the most frequent, the distance across SF Bay is too great, even by today's standards, to make for a logical consolidation.

Others didn't happen because the neighboring city is in a different state (Philadelphia, Camden) or country (Detroit, Windsor). Still others (DFW, MSP, Tampa/St. Pete) seem to have been avoided because the inclination to consolidate waned, or the process became to difficult practically, or the cities just grew to have enough prominence individually that one wasn't clearly poised to absorb the other.

Finally, are there cases where the annexed city was actually more populous or important than the one it's now a part of?

I think it's funny cities like Minneapolis/Saint Paul have so many suburbs and Austin has so few.  I lived in the "MUD" so I had an Austin address but didn't live "in" Austin, yet my mail carrier said it was a rural route, even though it really should have been a suburb.

[empirestate]

Columbus absorbed the older settlement Franklinton across the river early in the 19th century. Neither were "major" by today's standards, but Franklinton was the county seat, and I believe it was roughly in competition with Westerville and Newark as the largest settlement in central Ohio.  Columbus, on the other hand, was a brand-new planned city, plopped down artificially to become the new capital.

Major by contemporary standards is fine. By today's standards, even prime example Brooklyn doesn't rank. :-)

[vtk]

Columbus absorbed the older settlement Franklinton across the river early in the 19th century. Neither were "major" by today's standards, but Franklinton was the county seat, and I believe it was roughly in competition with Westerville and Newark as the largest settlement in central Ohio.  Columbus, on the other hand, was a brand-new planned city, plopped down artificially to become the new capital.

Major by contemporary standards is fine. By today's standards, even prime example Brooklyn doesn't rank. :-)

Well, I'm not sure what qualified as major at the time.  Without doing hard research, I think Franklinton/Columbus was prominent but not quite dominant in central Ohio, but small potatoes compared to the bustling port cities Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Marietta at the edges of the state.