Annex the Suburbs!

[TheStranger]

I think this was one of the primary motivations in Louisville's 2003 merger with Jefferson County - there were many subdivisions that, indeed, were their own "cities" within the county, to the point of absurdity.

But they're still their own municipalities, or at least many of them are.

What I wonder is...

How did some of the subdivision-sized "cities" in Jefferson County/Louisville Metro - say, like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsboro_Village,_Kentucky - function?  Did they have regular mayoral/town council/et al. elections, or were they run by a select few residents?

It seems that before the 2003 merger, Jefferson County might've been one of the easiest places to incorporate a small "town" the size of a suburban subdivision.  Wonder also when all these miniature suburbs were incorporated, if there was some sort of incentive in the 1950s-1970s to create separate communities.

[hbelkins]

How did some of the subdivision-sized "cities" in Jefferson County/Louisville Metro - say, like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsboro_Village,_Kentucky - function?  Did they have regular mayoral/town council/et al. elections, or were they run by a select few residents?

It seems that before the 2003 merger, Jefferson County might've been one of the easiest places to incorporate a small "town" the size of a suburban subdivision.  Wonder also when all these miniature suburbs were incorporated, if there was some sort of incentive in the 1950s-1970s to create separate communities.

If there are municipal governments, then absolutely they have to elect officials for the purposes of levying taxes, etc.

[mgk920]

^^
That's a LOT of opportunities to grease a lot of palms....

 

Mike

[triplemultiplex]

Their jobs exist where they do because of the city.
They enjoy countless amenities that are there because of the city.
They can only exist because of the infrastructure of the city.

Just read any promotional material from a suburban chamber of commerce or realtor.  At the very top of the list of reasons why you should visit, move to or locate your business in that suburb is because it's near Big City X.  Well if Big City X is such a good thing, why not just be a part of it?

Sounds like your thinking is the type that is written about in this article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz

And in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595230920/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon

In other words, let's have suburbs contribute to the services of the economic engines that they leach off of.  They benefit from that concentration of capital and workers and other resources.  But somehow they wipe their hands of responsibility for maintaining that engine by setting up shop right next to it?  It's like opening a super-Wal-Mart on the edge of town and expecting the taxpayers to pay for a wider road and a traffic light while at the same time, expecting a tax break for opening the store in the first place.

It's my opinion that suburbs are a convenient way of saying, "That's not my problem!"  Humans are better served when they are united by a common cause rather then pitted against one another in petty tribal conflicts.  Metro areas would be better served by a common purpose and a common government.  Imagine if suburbs are not fighting amongst each other and with the central city for the location of a business via various tax subsidies.  Isn't the point to get that business to locate somewhere in the metro area?  After all, nobody wants to be told where to live and where to commute by default, so why not just find the most efficient location in the area and not have individual cities trying to out-subsidize each other to get a new business that will just move to the next lowest bidder/highest subsidizer once the last subsidy expires?

I think of numerous examples around me in Milwaukee.  Roundy's is a huge grocery chain in this state.  A few years ago they moved their distribution warehouse from a strategic location in Wauwatosa really close to the Zoo Interchange and in the heart of a densely populated area with hundreds of thousands of potential workers within an easy commute to a place almost halfway to Madison in the middle of nowhere, population-wise thanks to a tax subsidy by the then Town of Summit.
Last year, Kohl's Department Stores pitted the suburb of Menomonee Falls against the City of Milwaukee in a tax subsidy bidding war over the location of their headquarters.  Milwaukee lost out because their 'bribe' wasn't appealing enough.
Locally based Northwestern Mutual Insurance pulled this kind of shit when they built a new location way down in Franklin some years ago; away from their headquarters downtown.  Since I've lived here I've heard many grumblings about them threatening to move out of downtown if they don't get some sort of preferential treatment from Milwaukee.

From a company's perspective, wouldn't it be easier to pick a spot in a metro area if you didn't have to worry about what kind of tax rate you might have on one side of an arbitrary line verses the other?  Let that all-knowing market determine the price and find a spot close to potential workers and transportation.  That'd be nice I think.  It'd be a happy medium between the subsidized rate the companies demand in the current system and the practical rate that nobody charges these days.

[hbelkins]

^^^

SMH 

[NE2]

^^^

keep on teabaggin'

[Alps]

^ Please stop with the political references. You have been warned before.

[cpzilliacus]

While there are a few exceptions, most big cities in America are surrounded by tons of little suburbs that really should have never been allowed to form.  Those areas should've just been added on to the main city (or 'cities' in the case of twins).  There are a few places where this happened, kinda; Indy, J-ville, Tucson, Louisville, Fresno...  But I want to see what it'd be like if we expand this model to other cities.

The District of Columbia, unlike most other larger central cities, cannot annex any adjoining part of Maryland or Virginia, and that is probably a good thing.

Tens or hundreds of thousands of people "voted with their feet" and moved away from D.C. starting in the 1950's.  Some of them left because they were tired of congressional meddling in municipal affairs (which goes on to this day), and some left because they were tired of the inefficient and creaking municipal government.

The inability to annex is probably unique to D.C., but families voting with their feet is not.

[TheStranger]

The inability to annex is probably unique to D.C., but families voting with their feet is not.

I think other places that have been practically landlocked by other communities end up having this status in de facto form, i.e. much of the San Francisco Bay Area over the last 40-50 years (now that boundaries between communities have been set in stone).

Texas's annexation laws stand in contrast to that, as they primarily allow the central urban community to retain a larger sphere of influence over suburban areas - even ones not yet part of said cities, i.e. The Woodlands as it relates to Houston.

[mgk920]

The inability to annex is probably unique to D.C., but families voting with their feet is not.

I think other places that have been practically landlocked by other communities end up having this status in de facto form, i.e. much of the San Francisco Bay Area over the last 40-50 years (now that boundaries between communities have been set in stone).

Texas's annexation laws stand in contrast to that, as they primarily allow the central urban community to retain a larger sphere of influence over suburban areas - even ones not yet part of said cities, i.e. The Woodlands as it relates to Houston.

Many cities are landlocked by either incorporated suburbs (Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Dallas, etc) or by virtue of being in states where annexation is not allowed (such as New York, Pennsylvania, New England states, etc) or severely restricted (Colorado, in the case of Denver, Virginia, Michigan, etc).

Mike

[NE2]

states where annexation is not allowed (such as New York, Pennsylvania, New England states, etc)

Has this changed since ca. 1900, when New York and Boston both grew by annexation?

[Stephane Dumas]

Besides annexing the suburbs, didn't some suburbs amalgated into one city? Here in Canada, we got Laval created in 1965 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval,_Quebec#History and Mississauga created in 1968 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga#History 

[empirestate]

states where annexation is not allowed (such as New York, Pennsylvania, New England states, etc)

Has this changed since ca. 1900, when New York and Boston both grew by annexation?

Yes; although annexations are in fact still possible in NYS, most city boundaries haven't changed since about 1920. One nail in the coffin was a 1961 law requiring approval from all the affected population, further solidified by the extension of home rule to local governments in 1963. Combine this with the fact that pre-1950, city annexations typically would have affected very sparsely populated outlying areas. I found this document explaining the whole situation for NYS: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/munistructures.pdf

[Brandon]

By contrast, annexation is still very easyin Illinois.  If it had enough space open nearby (or via a forest preserve), Chicago could annex more land.  Alas, it is completely landlocked.

[mgk920]

By contrast, annexation is still very easyin Illinois.  If it had enough space open nearby (or via a forest preserve), Chicago could annex more land.  Alas, it is completely landlocked.

OTOH, I would not put it past some of those 'basket case' south suburbs to ultimately seek to join the City of Chicago though municipal merger as a last resort to maintain services.

Mike

[hbelkins]

I still wonder how far 3MX wants to take his supposition. In Louisville's case, should the neighboring counties become part of the Louisville-Jefferson County metro government? Lots of people moved out of Jefferson County in the 1970s to get away from forced busing. My aunts and uncles lived in Shepherdsville, south of Louisville in Bullitt County, and I remember when it suddenly blew up from a sleepy little town of about 3,000 people to a  good-sized town. I remember when the field behind my aunt's house became a subdivision.

Those people are in another town and another county, but they are basically in a suburb of Louisville (and that's not to mention the new towns that formed such as Hillview and Pioneer Village just south of the Jefferson-Bullitt line). They have access to the jobs and the entertainment and the medical care and all the other stuff of the city.

Should they be forced to pay taxes to Louisville and Jefferson County, even though they live in a completely different county? The concept is the same.

[mgk920]

What would be the fairest way of assessing the costs of providing the services that they use while in the city?

Mike

[cpzilliacus]

Lots of people moved out of Jefferson County in the 1970s to get away from forced busing.

Not just there.  Prince George's County, Maryland had busing for the purpose of racial integration imposed by the federal courts in the early 1970's, and after many years of busing, the public schools are now nearly 100% minority - many families (and not just white families) fled the county for other counties in Maryland or Virginia to get away from busing.  It didn't help that Prince George's County was the only county in metropolitan Washington and Baltimore to have court-ordered busing.

[mgk920]

Those 'forced busing for racial integration' rulings of the 'enlightened' 1960a and 1970s were some of the worst blows of all to the urbanized USA.  They alone likely did far more to destroy our cities than any other single action.  The KKK of a century ago could not have come up with a better way to kill those areas than that.





Mike

[NE2]

^^^ SMH

[cpzilliacus]

Those 'forced busing for racial integration' rulings of the 'enlightened' 1960a and 1970s were some of the worst blows of all to the urbanized USA.  They alone likely did far more to destroy our cities than any other single action.

Though how many central city school systems were actually forced into busing schemes? Not all that many - I can only think of a few where it was attempted: (1) Boston, Mass. - and the reaction there was violent; (2) Los Angeles, Calif. - where the attempt at busing was effectively nullified by Proposition 1 (passed 1979); and (3) Richmond, Virginia.

Prince George's County, Maryland was (then and now) a mostly suburban community. 

The KKK of a century ago could not have come up with a better way to kill those areas than that.

I am not aware of any place in the U.S. where court-ordered busing created any long-lasting benefits for public school students or anyone else.

[mgk920]

IIRC, Milwaukee and Detroit were victims of that, too.



Mike

[Brandon]

By contrast, annexation is still very easyin Illinois.  If it had enough space open nearby (or via a forest preserve), Chicago could annex more land.  Alas, it is completely landlocked.

OTOH, I would not put it past some of those 'basket case' south suburbs to ultimately seek to join the City of Chicago though municipal merger as a last resort to maintain services.

Mike

Not really.  Many of them want their own county as they think Cook County spends too much time and energy on Chicago instead of them.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Those 'forced busing for racial integration' rulings of the 'enlightened' 1960a and 1970s were some of the worst blows of all to the urbanized USA.  They alone likely did far more to destroy our cities than any other single action.

Though how many central city school systems were actually forced into busing schemes? Not all that many - I can only think of a few where it was attempted: (1) Boston, Mass. - and the reaction there was violent; (2) Los Angeles, Calif. - where the attempt at busing was effectively nullified by Proposition 1 (passed 1979); and (3) Richmond, Virginia.

Prince George's County, Maryland was (then and now) a mostly suburban community. 

The KKK of a century ago could not have come up with a better way to kill those areas than that.

I am not aware of any place in the U.S. where court-ordered busing created any long-lasting benefits for public school students or anyone else.

Columbus back in 1979.
This would later lead to the "win-win" agreement between Columbus and many of the suburban schools in the late 1980s. In exchange for suburban schools getting to keep their "territory" within the city of Columbus, they had to pay Columbus schools for the students that would normally be Columbus Public School students.

[tdindy88]

Indianapolis went through the same thing with IPS students being bused to the townships schools that consist of the outer 8 townships in Marion County (with Center Township, IPS territory in the center.) Over time, some of these townships diversified on their own and the busing stopped and in others the busing was more or less ended (especially in the southern townships which have had, until recently, a non-diverse population.) It's generally viewed as something that failed in the end and is one reason people moved beyond Marion County to the counties surrounding it. Of course, in Indianapolis proper (Marion County) only Center Township continues to lose population while the outer townships are still growing (slow, but still growing.)