Annex the Suburbs!

[hbelkins]

Louisville and Jefferson County merged a few years ago, but there are a large number of independent cities within Jefferson County that are not part of the merged government. Some of these amount to little more than subdivisions, but they are still independent cities in their own right.

I disagree about getting benefits without the responsibility. Residents of unincorporated suburbs, or incorporated cities outside the main city, do not pay for any of the services that the residents of the city get, and they do not get those services. Prior to the merger, for instance, Louisville police would not be responsible for the county or for the other towns within the county. So how, exactly, are the residents of the suburbs getting benefits from the city?

People in LaGrange (Oldham County), Shepherdsville (Bullitt County) and other nearby counties and cities also get benefit from proximity to Louisville, so should they become part of Louisville too?

Stupid idea. There's a reason people like to live near metro areas but not within the city, lower taxes being one.

[brad2971]

...Denver is locked in to its boundaries by state constitutional amendment (the Poundstone Amendment), and had to make a deal with Adams County to annex prairie dog-infested scrub in order to build DIA.  Ironically enough, both Omaha and Denver are more prosperous for being locked in to those requirements than they otherwise would be.

I do think you make some good points; I have puzzled over what could be done about the fact that all the suburbanites drive on Denver's roads, but don't have to pay for their upkeep.  But I'm curious: why do you think Denver would be less prosperous if it wasn't fenced in by Poundstone?

Housing in Denver, for starters, would be much less lucrative without Poundstone. Both Lowry and Stapleton would sit empty in a Denver that is more easily able to annex. After all, why spend the money to redevelop when there's more vacant land there to annex? Heck, Stapleton would probably still be a commercial airport without Poundstone, despite the noise complaints by both Montbello and Park Hill residents.

[Zmapper]

There's a reason people like to live near metro areas but not within the city, lower taxes being one.

I believe that in the case of Denver, the property tax rate is lower in the city than in the suburbs. Mostly it is because the infrastructure is already built out, yet isn't too old, so all the city has to do is preform basic maintenance.

[on_wisconsin]

BTW, the Appleton area is the State of Wisconsin's 'poster child' for the need for major local government reform and metro-wide municipal amalgamation.

BUT... Combined Locks is the most exhilarating city in the state! 

[triplemultiplex]

So how, exactly, are the residents of the suburbs getting benefits from the city?

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?

A deeper motivation for this thought experiment is desire to bring order to the human-made chaos of municipal boundaries.  This block is in one city and those three houses are in that other city and these two are still part of the township and this glorified subdivision is its own city; it's all so stupid.  The whole area should just be one city.

[Brandon]

So how, exactly, are the residents of the suburbs getting benefits from the city?

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?

A deeper motivation for this thought experiment is desire to bring order to the human-made chaos of municipal boundaries.  This block is in one city and those three houses are in that other city and these two are still part of the township and this glorified subdivision is its own city; it's all so stupid.  The whole area should just be one city.

Their jobs exist because of the city?  Not always, in fact, it's becoming more often than not that they never even have to go into the city.  To be frank, Chicago wouldn't exist without us out here.  We provide their oil, we provide their power, we control the waterway, and we control the intermodal yards.

We don't need their corruption, their provincialism, or their crap.

[kphoger]

So how, exactly, are the residents of the suburbs getting benefits from the city?

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?

A deeper motivation for this thought experiment is desire to bring order to the human-made chaos of municipal boundaries.  This block is in one city and those three houses are in that other city and these two are still part of the township and this glorified subdivision is its own city; it's all so stupid.  The whole area should just be one city.

Their jobs exist because of the city?  Not always, in fact, it's becoming more often than not that they never even have to go into the city.  To be frank, Chicago wouldn't exist without us out here.  We provide their oil, we provide their power, we control the waterway, and we control the intermodal yards.

We don't need their corruption, their provincialism, or their crap.

To be honest, Chicago did exist before the suburbs.  Annexing the suburbs wouldn't get rid of its oil, pwer, water, or freight.

(and yes, I used to live in the Chicago suburbs.  born in Joliet, lived in New Lenox till age eight, college in River Forest, then lived in Wheaton and Carol Stream)

[Stephane Dumas]

A bit off-topic, some folks taught of various ideas about how to adress suburban spawl in the Cleveland area http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2012/04/the_northeast_ohio_sustainable.html  One guy mentionned a good point on page 5 of the comments at the bottom of the page.

Some suburbs couldn't be annexed. I don't see Toronto annexing Mississauga who now have its own skyline. http://spacingtoronto.ca/2009/02/13/mississauga-has-a-skyline/  Mississauga was created by the amalgation of Port Credit, Streetsville and various townships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga

Could we imagine some suburbs of Long Island merging together to create "Long Island City" or how about Jersey City, Newark, Patterson and Elizabeth amalgating together?

[Beltway]

Their jobs exist because of the city?  Not always, in fact, it's becoming more often than not that they never even have to go into the city.  To be frank, Chicago wouldn't exist without us out here.  We provide their oil, we provide their power, we control the waterway, and we control the intermodal yards.

We don't need their corruption, their provincialism, or their crap.

In the last few years I have become embarrassed to admit that I was born there.

....

Tysons Corner VA has more square feet of office space than downtown Pittsburgh.

[hbelkins]

So how, exactly, are the residents of the suburbs getting benefits from the city?

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.

Those are intangible benefits. I'm talking tangible benefits like fire protection, police protection, garbage collection, etc., that residents of the city get in exchange for their tax dollars.

[empirestate]

Those are intangible benefits. I'm talking tangible benefits like fire protection, police protection, garbage collection, etc., that residents of the city get in exchange for their tax dollars.

I think that's slightly beside the point; obviously residents of one municipality don't directly receive the specific services of the neighboring larger municipality. Suburbs and bedroom communities owe their very existence to their core cities, by definition. If not for the economic and geographic factors that led to the initial growth of the metro area, localized within that core city, there would be no suburbs and no residents of them to even be having this discussion. So the benefit they receive is the viability of existing in the first place.

[Beltway]

Those are intangible benefits. I'm talking tangible benefits like fire protection, police protection, garbage collection, etc., that residents of the city get in exchange for their tax dollars.

I think that's slightly beside the point; obviously residents of one municipality don't directly receive the specific services of the neighboring larger municipality. Suburbs and bedroom communities owe their very existence to their core cities, by definition. If not for the economic and geographic factors that led to the initial growth of the metro area, localized within that core city, there would be no suburbs and no residents of them to even be having this discussion. So the benefit they receive is the viability of existing in the first place.

I disagree.  The U.S. is peppered with thousands of towns and small cities that are not near a major city.

[Brandon]

So how, exactly, are the residents of the suburbs getting benefits from the city?

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?

A deeper motivation for this thought experiment is desire to bring order to the human-made chaos of municipal boundaries.  This block is in one city and those three houses are in that other city and these two are still part of the township and this glorified subdivision is its own city; it's all so stupid.  The whole area should just be one city.

Their jobs exist because of the city?  Not always, in fact, it's becoming more often than not that they never even have to go into the city.  To be frank, Chicago wouldn't exist without us out here.  We provide their oil, we provide their power, we control the waterway, and we control the intermodal yards.

We don't need their corruption, their provincialism, or their crap.

To be honest, Chicago did exist before the suburbs.  Annexing the suburbs wouldn't get rid of its oil, pwer, water, or freight.

(and yes, I used to live in the Chicago suburbs.  born in Joliet, lived in New Lenox till age eight, college in River Forest, then lived in Wheaton and Carol Stream)

Some suburbs, not all, and not all of the cities around Chicago are suburbs, and some of them have suburbs themselves.

The satellite cities (Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, Waukegan) started at the same time as Chicago and have their own suburbs, some more so than others.  Others, commonly viewed as suburbs, got their start at the same time as Chicago as well, and may even predate the city (Plainfield, Naperville).  Some were never meant as suburbs for the city and grew up along other routes (Lockport, St Charles, Geneva, Batavia).  Some were meant as large company towns, not as suburbs (Gary).  Many of these still have their identities as separate towns from Chicago, especially further out from the city.  Most of NW Indiana thinks of itself as different than Chicago, for example, as does much of Will County (Joliet in particular - it's a governmental center [Will County county seat], unlike Aurora and Elgin [Geneva is the county seat of Kane County]).  By contrast, many of the inner suburbs (usually inside I-294) think of themselves as a part of Chicago (Cicero, Evergreen Park, Park Ridge, etc).

[kphoger]

Frank Lloyd Wright moved to Oak Park to escape the city.  Imagine that today!

[kphoger]

A deeper motivation for this thought experiment is desire to bring order to the human-made chaos of municipal boundaries.  This block is in one city and those three houses are in that other city and these two are still part of the township and this glorified subdivision is its own city; it's all so stupid.  The whole area should just be one city.

Indeed.  I used to get a kick out of standing at the corner of Harlem and North Avenue in....well, I'd like to say Chicago.  Anyway, I used to get a kick out of standing at that corner and being able to see four different towns.
Northwest corner:  Elmwood Park.
Northeast corner:  Chicago.
Southeast corner:  Oak Park.
Southwest corner:  River Forest.
My how unique the view was not in one direction compared to the others.

[empirestate]

I disagree.  The U.S. is peppered with thousands of towns and small cities that are not near a major city.

Of course, but those aren't the ones being discussed here. They, for one reason or another, never grew into major core cities themselves, but if they did, you can bet they be surrounded by a whole host of other municipalities that aren't even a gleam in anyone's eye as things stand today.

[NJRoadfan]

or how about Jersey City, Newark, Patterson and Elizabeth amalgating together?

Actually the lack of annexation is what keeps New Jersey's cities relatively poor due to the limited tax base. Newark could easily absorb Irvington, East Orange, and Belleville. Linden and Roselle need to combine already. Like most NJ municipalities, they split in the late 1800s for stupid reasons, same goes for Roselle Park and Union Twp.

[Desert Man]

Most suburbs oppose annexation to avoid paying higher city and municipal taxes, some become incorporated cities all together. The city of Carson to avoid L.A. or Long Beach, Goleta west of Santa Barbara and Tustin near Santa Ana are examples. More Sou. Cal. rural areas or exurbs wish to pursue incorporation, sometimes to protect themselves from suburban sprawl encroachment on their open spaces, but what happens is preservation of lands surrounding them raises real estate values and housing costs/prices.

[texaskdog]

Works great when they tax for things like Viking & Twin stadiums

[TheStranger]

A deeper motivation for this thought experiment is desire to bring order to the human-made chaos of municipal boundaries.  This block is in one city and those three houses are in that other city and these two are still part of the township and this glorified subdivision is its own city; it's all so stupid.  The whole area should just be one city.

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.

[CenVlyDave]

I cant vouch for other cities but I feel Los Angeles needs to scale down, a few neighborhoods in the San Fernando valley I feel would probably do better as their own cities again. Van Nuys is one for sure. LAPD drags its heels on a lot of the problems over there. I guess in the mid 00s they tried to secede but it failed. Not just Van Nuys but the entire valley. That was too big of a project I think.

Any of the neighboring cities that are left like Burbank, Glendale, West Hollywood, etc I dont think they'd ever want to be annexed by Los Angeles. They avoided it with having their own water supply in the early 20th century, I say leech all you want. Cities would end up getting way too large, its already difficult for LA to keep up with its own affairs with it being the largest city in the US by land size (im pretty sure it passes New York) It must work though since there are cities like Tokyo with a comparable population to the entire state almost. But I'd imagine they don't even know what they all have there

I personally would like to see Sunland & Tujunga their own city or cities again. But that's just me living over here I don't mind LA haha...

I agree.  I kinda felt sorry for the SFV when the measure to split from LA failed.  The Valley is treated by the city of LA as the "Red Headed Stepchild" of the entire city.  I believe that there was some talk at some point about Wilmington, Harbor City, and San Pedro forming their own municipality as well.

[CenVlyDave]

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.

Suburbs allow a self selecting group of people to leech off of the economic and entertainment attraction of a big city without paying for its upkeep.  They benefit from all the services and amenities of their core city, directly and indirectly, but are somehow absolved of responsibility for their upkeep.

Nobody would live in a suburb if it wasn't located right next to a big city.  On the surface, that sounds dumb, but think about it; you're not going to take the same collection of subdivisions, office parks, retail strips and light industry; plop it down in the middle of nowhere and have it work.

Suburbs certainly don't exactly help bridge our political divides.

People who live in suburbs will tell you they live in the city which they are actually a satellite of.

Suburbs are completely indistinguishable from each other anyway.

So I propose that major cities start annexing suburbs.  We'll start small at first; just grabbing ones that are in the same county or inside the beltline.  Then we'll reach out farther as needed.  We'll respect state boundaries, but all other townships, villages and cities will unite with the main city.  The ultimate boundary will be up to me.  If we're all going to live in the same general area, we might as well be united in the same municipality.  I think politics would get better if we couldn't huddle together in suburbs or central cities and sneer at one another from a distance.  Then we can finally treat metro areas as the single entities they functionally are without all of the redundant bureaucracy of cities, suburbs and counties.
Most importantly , this will make our cities reflect how big they actually are.


(disclaimer: this is only a semi-serious thought experiment)

The only suburb left in the Fresno area now is Clovis.

[hbelkins]

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.

[hobsini2]

In The case of Chicagoland, here are some of the bigger or older suburbs in Cook County:
pre 1850, 1850-1875, 1876-1900, 1901-1925, 1926-1950, 1951-newer

COOK CO: Chicago 1837, Alsip 1840, Arlington Hts 1836, Barrington 1865, Berwyn 1908, Brookfield 1893, Burbank 1970, Calumet City 1896, Chicago Hts 1893, Cicero 1869, Des Plaines 1869, Evanston 1872, Harvey 1891, Hoffman Estates 1959, La Grange 1879, Lansing 1893, Lemont 1833, Matteson 1889, Niles 1899, Oak Lawn 1909, Orland Park 1892, Palatine 1866, Park Ridge 1873, Schaumburg 1956, Skokie 1888, Tinley Park 1892

I will do other main suburbs in the other 6 counties and Lake County Ind at another time.

[hbelkins]

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