AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2012, 08:21:13 PM

Title: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2012, 08:21:13 PM
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 :sombrero:, this will make our cities reflect how big they actually are.


(disclaimer: this is only a semi-serious thought experiment)
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: bulkyorled on April 20, 2012, 08:41:54 PM
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...
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: brad2971 on April 20, 2012, 08:43:56 PM
It's a good thing this is a "semi-serious thought experiment," because I can think of at least two cities that would run into a state-level political fight if this was seriously tried.

Omaha, NE, has been very diligent in annexing properties, even an entire town (Elkhorn). However, Omaha is forbidden by the state of NE from going across the Douglas-Sarpy county line to annex property. Likewise, 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. In fact, Kansas City, despite being able to go across the Missouri River to Clay and Platte counties for property, is considerably poorer (as both a city and Metro area) than both Omaha and Denver.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: tdindy88 on April 20, 2012, 08:48:51 PM
I think this policy, in terms of at least Indianapolis, is what kept it from declining too much when other Rust Belt cities were declining (being a state capital and largest city helped too, among other reasons.) When Unigov happened in the 70s, the city was losing people to the suburban parts of Marion County and once the city and county were merged the city started to gain people every census and has done so since. In doing this, IMO, it allowed the city some time to dig themselves out of the hole they were in with the shrinking inner city and revitialize the downtown and embark on their sports stragety (see this year's Super Bowl for the ultimate sucess in this.) Of course, the fact that it wasn't tied down as much to the auto industry helped as well, and there are other factors at play as well. All of this allowed the city to continue growing to the point that it is among the stronger cities in the Midwest today. Of course, now the problem is that the metro area isn't as big as it should be with a city as big as it is (since the city took up part of the metro area.) And plenty of the inner city is still in dire shape, but with a growing city and metro area at least those neighborhoods can be improved over time instead of being left to rot.

Even with this, I suspect many of these small towns would like to keep their indpenedence and are not going to want to give that up, realistically. In the end, I think a strong metro government (with the large city and individual suburbs intact) is the best that we can hope for. Minneapolis-St. Paul and Portland, OR have perhaps the strongest metro organizations that actually dictate some of the policies for their metro regions and in the Portland example, if I understand correctly, the metro government is actually voted on by the residents of the three Oregon counties in the metro area, being the only metropolitan government (that isn't a municipality, township or county) that has elected members. Just my two cents though.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: bulkyorled on April 20, 2012, 08:51:50 PM
Also with what I said goes strictly for Los Angeles or at least California cities. I feel like they don't need to grow anymore. They're done haha They're large and in charge. I definitely know a few cities LA could gobble up though, the city of San Fernando is a small square completely surrounded by Los Angeles.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: texaskdog on April 20, 2012, 09:25:18 PM
I moved from Saint Paul (with tons of suburbs) to Austin (really none, just small towns that are now touching Austin.  Just makes a whole lot more sense to me to be part of the city.  However we have little areas that are not incorporated called "MUDS".  When I was in the mud when I first moved to Austin, we had an Austin address, but felt like a suburb, but our mail carrier said it was a rural route.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Stephane Dumas on April 20, 2012, 10:25:40 PM
It could be interesting to see Cleveland amalgating with Cayuga county.

Also, in Montreal's North Shore, Sainte-Therèse, Boisbriand as well as Deux-Montagnes and St-Eustache could be amalgated in 1 or 2 cities.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: oscar on April 20, 2012, 11:18:07 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2012, 08:21:13 PM
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.
That's not all that's going on.  What about suburbs that thrive in part because of chronic mismanagement of city governments?  For example, when I moved to the Washington D.C. area, it was in the "Mayor Crackhead" era, which made it very easy for me to settle in the close-in (and much better-run, but still very urban) suburb in which I now reside. 

The state line, fortunately, keeps D.C. from clawing back Arlington ("back" because Arlington was part of D.C. until ca. 1846, before it was ceded back to Virginia).  One variant of your suggestion has been floated, to create a new state merging D.C. with its northern Virginia and Maryland suburbs.  Aside from requiring the consent of both of the affected state governments, the idea also gets howls of outrage from within D.C. since the city would then be dominated by its more-populous and on average less-black suburbs. 
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: broadhurst04 on April 20, 2012, 11:31:37 PM
I have thought in recent years that Raleigh, Cary, and Morrisville NC should combine into one city. Cary has no discernible downtown, and Morrisville is so hemmed in by Cary and RDU Airport that it's difficult to discern where you've entered it and left it. The expanded City of Raleigh would then have a combined population of 557,702 (referencing Wikipedia articles).

Another thought: if you want to get rid of suburbs, why not let Raleigh annex all of Wake County, just as Virginia Beach did to Princess Anne County in 1963?
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Brandon on April 21, 2012, 12:06:46 AM
Chicago did add on smaller suburbs (Town of Lake, Hyde Park, etc) in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.  State law put a stop to the practice after enough of them complained.  However, due to the major development pattern, many suburbs here do have discernible downtowns along the rail lines (Plainfield, Lockport, Westmont, Naperville, etc).  Only a few actually lack a downtown (Bolingbrook, Homer Glen).

I'd rather see school districts combined instead.  Illinois has more school districts per capita than any other state in the Union.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mgk920 on April 21, 2012, 12:34:06 AM
I often wonder how different Milwaukee's 'politick' would be if the entire metro area (essentially all of the old 'metroplan' local phone calling area) was in the city and able to vote in mayor and city council elections.

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.

Mike
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Stephane Dumas on April 21, 2012, 10:50:25 AM
I spotted that video showing the annex and population stats of Detroit http://vimeo.com/39417555  Could we imagine some areas being unincorporated?
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: kphoger on April 21, 2012, 11:36:44 AM
Quote from: Brandon on April 21, 2012, 12:06:46 AM
Chicago did add on smaller suburbs (Town of Lake, Hyde Park, etc) in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.  State law put a stop to the practice after enough of them complained.  However, due to the major development pattern, many suburbs here do have discernible downtowns along the rail lines (Plainfield, Lockport, Westmont, Naperville, etc).  Only a few actually lack a downtown (Bolingbrook, Homer Glen).

I'd rather see school districts combined instead.  Illinois has more school districts per capita than any other state in the Union.

I always found it interesting that Austin is part of Chicago yet Oak Park is not.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Beltway on April 21, 2012, 05:04:12 PM
Because most towns and counties actively resist attempts at annexation.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Bickendan on April 21, 2012, 05:18:22 PM
Portland did this to a number of its suburbs: Multnomah Village, Sellwood, East Portland, St Johns, Linnton, Hillsdale, Lents, Woodstock, Parkrose, Hollywood, Hayden Island and Vanport. With the exception of Vanport (which flooded away and is now Portland International Raceway), each of these former cities has an identifiable 'downtown'.
Portland did not annex Maywood Park, however, and it is completely ensconced in Portland's city limits.

The other suburbs are either too far east and didn't run into the possibility of annexation (Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, Wood Village, although those three are considering merging into one city) or are in Washington or Clackamas Counties. Or in Washington, period. Those outer suburbs have been making annexation rumblings of their own: Happy Valley has been taking Clackamas, and Beaverton and Hillsboro have been taking Aloha. Nike has also led a successful campaign to stop Beaverton's ambitious annexation plans, which would have made it Oregon's second largest city.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Brandon on April 21, 2012, 10:21:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2012, 05:04:12 PM
Because most towns and counties actively resist attempts at annexation.

Maybe in the east, as I know cities are independent of counties in Virginia, but not in Illinois.  Townships and counties cannot resist annexation here.  Towns (only about 10 in the state such as Cicero and Normal), villages, and cities can resist annexation as they are incorporated.  Unincorporated areas usually choose to join a municipality, but can also be forcibly annexed.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Darkchylde on April 22, 2012, 12:28:07 AM
Sadly, this wouldn't be possible with the Northshore suburbs of New Orleans that are currently thriving. Physical location is something to consider there, as well as a cultural divide between the two places.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: vdeane on April 22, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
I believe one reason why people in suburbs identify with the city is because that's how the post office sets up their address.  Also, it's easier to tell people out of town who likely don't know the names of the suburbs.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: froggie on April 22, 2012, 01:31:42 PM
QuoteAside from requiring the consent of both of the affected state governments, the idea also gets howls of outrage from within D.C. since the city would then be dominated by its more-populous and on average less-black suburbs.

I don't think you can quite say this anymore, at least on the Maryland side.  For starters, per Census numbers, DC is now just barely back to majority white (just a hair over 50%).  Meanwhile, Prince George's County has long been majority-minority and Montgomery County is now the same.

True, DC might be dominated by its neighbors, but the "on average less-black" only applies to the Virginia side now, not the Maryland side.


QuoteAnother thought: if you want to get rid of suburbs, why not let Raleigh annex all of Wake County, just as Virginia Beach did to Princess Anne County in 1963?

It should be noted that it wasn't so much Virginia Beach merging with Princess Anne County as it was the other way around.  Princess Anne County became an independent city not because of the pre-existing Virginia Beach within it, but because county residents feared annexation by Norfolk.  During the 1950s, there were at least 2 instances of Norfolk annexing land within Princess Anne County.  County residents feared further annexation so by 1963 they were successful in consolidating with Virginia Beach.  A similar fear turned Norfolk County and the former city of South Norfolk into Chesapeake.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
New York City did exactly what you are proposing 114 years ago. :sombrero:

Now the entire metro area is far too big to fit into one municipality (the fact that it extends into two other states not even being considered). As it is, the entire city already takes up five whole counties.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Beltway on April 22, 2012, 04:05:02 PM
Annexation by cities in Virginia is certainly legal, but the counties have to agree to it.  The last annexation in Virginia was in 1970 by the City of Richmond annexing parts of Chesterfield and Henrico counties.

The City of Petersburg has tried several times since then, the last in the 1990s, but Prince George County firmly resisted it.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: usends on April 23, 2012, 10:59:01 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on April 20, 2012, 08:43:56 PM
...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?
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 23, 2012, 11:09:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 22, 2012, 04:05:02 PM
Annexation by cities in Virginia is certainly legal, but the counties have to agree to it.  The last annexation in Virginia was in 1970 by the City of Richmond annexing parts of Chesterfield and Henrico counties.

The City of Petersburg has tried several times since then, the last in the 1990s, but Prince George County firmly resisted it.
Is it true that Hopewell tried to annex part of Prince George County to about Ruffin Rd(VA 106/156)?  I remember my dad telling me that I could have been living in Hopewell.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: codyg1985 on April 23, 2012, 11:47:38 AM
It would be very interesting to see what metro Birmingham, AL would look like if Birmingham annexed all of the suburbs. I would expect A LOT of resistance to that happening though due to political reasons.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Beltway on April 23, 2012, 02:05:20 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 23, 2012, 11:09:55 AM
Is it true that Hopewell tried to annex part of Prince George County to about Ruffin Rd(VA 106/156)?  I remember my dad telling me that I could have been living in Hopewell.

I don't know the details, but Hopewell was in on the annexation efforts in the 1990s.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 05:37:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: brad2971 on April 23, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: usends on April 23, 2012, 10:59:01 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on April 20, 2012, 08:43:56 PM
...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.

Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Zmapper on April 23, 2012, 07:06:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 05:37:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: on_wisconsin on April 23, 2012, 08:31:30 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 21, 2012, 12:34:06 AMBTW, 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!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 05:37:54 PMSo 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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Brandon on April 24, 2012, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 05:37:54 PMSo 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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: kphoger on April 24, 2012, 07:44:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 24, 2012, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 05:37:54 PMSo 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)
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Stephane Dumas on April 24, 2012, 07:47:41 PM
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? :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2012, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 24, 2012, 07:38:16 PM
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.

Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hbelkins on April 24, 2012, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 05:37:54 PMSo 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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: empirestate on April 24, 2012, 10:31:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2012, 10:03:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2012, 10:42:20 PM
Quote from: empirestate on April 24, 2012, 10:31:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2012, 10:03:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Brandon on April 24, 2012, 10:45:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2012, 07:44:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 24, 2012, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 23, 2012, 05:37:54 PMSo 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).
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: kphoger on April 24, 2012, 10:56:35 PM
Frank Lloyd Wright moved to Oak Park to escape the city.  Imagine that today!
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: kphoger on April 24, 2012, 11:06:02 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM

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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: empirestate on April 25, 2012, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2012, 10:42:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 25, 2012, 11:50:44 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 24, 2012, 07:47:41 PMor how about Jersey City, Newark, Patterson and Elizabeth amalgating together? :rolleyes:

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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Desert Man on May 01, 2012, 11:57:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: texaskdog on May 01, 2012, 03:15:07 PM
Works great when they tax for things like Viking & Twin stadiums
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: TheStranger on May 01, 2012, 03:29:17 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM


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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: CenVlyDave on May 01, 2012, 07:42:04 PM
Quote from: bulkyorled on April 20, 2012, 08:41:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: CenVlyDave on May 01, 2012, 07:43:16 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2012, 08:21:13 PM
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 :sombrero:, 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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hbelkins on May 01, 2012, 10:30:47 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 01, 2012, 03:29:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hobsini2 on May 07, 2012, 10:16:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hbelkins on August 02, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
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
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: TheStranger on August 02, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 01, 2012, 10:30:47 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 01, 2012, 03:29:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hbelkins on August 02, 2012, 09:34:41 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 02, 2012, 03:05:01 PM

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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mgk920 on August 02, 2012, 09:44:49 PM
^^
That's a LOT of opportunities to grease a lot of palms....

  :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 05, 2012, 11:24:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 24, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hbelkins on August 06, 2012, 12:25:26 PM
^^^

SMH  :spin:
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NE2 on August 06, 2012, 12:27:39 PM
^^^

keep on teabaggin'
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Alps on August 06, 2012, 08:19:25 PM
 ^ Please stop with the political references. You have been warned before.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2012, 12:03:46 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2012, 08:21:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: TheStranger on August 07, 2012, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2012, 12:03:46 PM

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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mgk920 on August 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 07, 2012, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2012, 12:03:46 PM

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
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NE2 on August 07, 2012, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 07, 2012, 04:28:26 PM
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 
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: empirestate on August 07, 2012, 06:40:08 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 07, 2012, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
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
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Brandon on August 07, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mgk920 on August 07, 2012, 09:54:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 07, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
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
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: hbelkins on August 07, 2012, 11:05:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 12:27:54 AM
What would be the fairest way of assessing the costs of providing the services that they use while in the city?

Mike
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 08, 2012, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 07, 2012, 11:05:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 11:10:42 AM
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.

:angry:

:banghead:

Mike
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 12:04:26 PM
^^^ SMH
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 08, 2012, 12:10:38 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 11:10:42 AM
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. 

Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 11:10:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 12:42:32 PM
IIRC, Milwaukee and Detroit were victims of that, too.

:angry:

Mike
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Brandon on August 08, 2012, 07:06:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 07, 2012, 09:54:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 07, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 08, 2012, 11:03:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 08, 2012, 12:10:38 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 11:10:42 AM
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. 

Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 11:10:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: tdindy88 on August 08, 2012, 11:21:13 PM
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.)
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Doctor Whom on October 19, 2012, 04:34:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2012, 12:27:54 AM
What would be the fairest way of assessing the costs of providing the services that they use while in the city?

Mike
You'd have to offset those costs by the nonresidential taxes to which such people contribute.  People in the District of Columbia complain about having to provide services to the commuters, while conveniently forgetting the huge amount of money that the District collects in nonresidential taxes such as commercial real-estate taxes.  They seem to assume that the residential tax base subsidizes the commercial tax base, when the general rule is that the exact opposite is the case.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 19, 2012, 08:26:13 PM
What is advocated in this thread was actually implemented by San Deigo in the 1970's and 1980's.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 19, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
Pittsburgh should have annexed (my knowlege only applies to north side communities) the river communities of Bellvue/Avalon, Ross/Shaler Township, Millvale a good 20 years ago, those communities now have the same demographic negatives of the main city and you get no noticible benefit whan you cross the city limits.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 01:41:00 PM
How did Baldwin, FL escape the clutches of Jacksonville when the rest of Duval County got absorbed?
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NE2 on December 01, 2012, 01:42:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 01:41:00 PM
the rest of Duval County got absorbed?
It didn't.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Stephane Dumas on December 01, 2012, 02:42:28 PM
I spotted some discussions on City-Data and Skyscraperpage who mention articles who suggest to dissolve Detroit into Wayne county
http://www.city-data.com/forum/detroit/1742380-dissolving-detroit-into-wayne-county.html
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=202716
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 01, 2012, 01:42:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 01:41:00 PM
the rest of Duval County got absorbed?
It didn't.
Besides Atlantic, Jacksonville Beach, and Neptune, who are like Baldwin, every other part of the county is within the Jacksonville City Limits.  Its been that way since 68.  These communities were allowed to remain as their own, but they do have voting power in the city.  A person living in Neptune, even though that person has its own government, still can elect the Jacksonville Mayor.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NE2 on December 01, 2012, 05:18:52 PM
Exactly. Baldwin wasn't the only one; all (?) existing cities remained separate.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 01, 2012, 05:18:52 PM
Exactly. Baldwin wasn't the only one; all (?) existing cities remained separate.
Well I did mean the whole bunch, but you hit the nail on the head as those were already corporated before ole Jax took on the entire county.  It is most likely that Durbin, Oceanway, etc. were not corporated so they got absorbed.  Lets say if Orlando decided to annex Orange County, then the existing cities Belle Isle, Englewood, and even Winter Park could not be done, hence why Hunters Creek wants to become independent.  The City of Orlando will not be able to touch them as they did Lake Nona or Universal Studios that were once unicorporated.  I also believe that Lockeed Martin was not originally part of Orlando as its property line just happens to be the City Limits on three sides.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NE2 on December 01, 2012, 06:09:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Hunters Creek wants to become independent.
[citation needed]

Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
I also believe that Lockeed Martin was not originally part of Orlando as its property line just happens to be the City Limits on three sides.
It's never been part of Orlando...
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 06:25:09 PM
Are you sure about that?  I know someone who works there and said that the fire station up the street on Sand Lake cannot respond to situations at Lockeed Martin due to it being in Orlando City.  He needed help for something and a fireman from the station on Vineland Road responded to the call and explained that even though his station is further, Orange County who operates the other station less than a mile away, cannot come into the city.

I know that Kirkman all the way down is Orlando.  Only Orlovista is Orange County as well as Pine Hills ( we all know why Orlando would not want that community).
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: NE2 on December 01, 2012, 06:33:18 PM
http://www.cityoforlando.net/gis/pdf/zoning/ZON_17.pdf
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: jwolfer on December 01, 2012, 10:12:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 01, 2012, 05:18:52 PM
Exactly. Baldwin wasn't the only one; all (?) existing cities remained separate.
Well I did mean the whole bunch, but you hit the nail on the head as those were already corporated before ole Jax took on the entire county.  It is most likely that Durbin, Oceanway, etc. were not corporated so they got absorbed.  Lets say if Orlando decided to annex Orange County, then the existing cities Belle Isle, Englewood, and even Winter Park could not be done, hence why Hunters Creek wants to become independent.  The City of Orlando will not be able to touch them as they did Lake Nona or Universal Studios that were once unicorporated.  I also believe that Lockeed Martin was not originally part of Orlando as its property line just happens to be the City Limits on three sides.

Jacksonville functions as the Duval County Government.  People in the beaches cities and Baldwin vote for the mayor of Jacksonville and have representaiton on the city council. In fact the former mayor John Delany was a resident of Neptune Beach
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: wphiii on January 15, 2013, 10:50:28 PM
City-suburb consolidation would absolutely be for the greater benefit in most cases for mid-size cities.

The real problem is, when you're dealing with a bunch of municipalities that all have their own elected officials and service providers (fire, police, sanitation, etc), that's a lot of people who'd be out of a job. It's for that reason that serious consolidation talks have never gotten off the ground here in Pittsburgh, and probably other places as well, which is a shame because a city-county merger would stand to benefit the entire region.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Molandfreak on January 15, 2013, 11:25:21 PM
The only Twin Cities suburbs that should exist are: Mendota (not heights) in some larger form, the Stillwater-Hudson vicinity consolidated to two cities, Forest Lake and the area north, Anoka, Elk River and a couple other St. Cloud exurbs, a couple little cities on Lake Minnetonka (excluding Minnetrista), Shakopee, Prior Lake, southern Lakeville, southern Farmington, Rosemount, Hastings-Prescott, and maybe hold on to Burnsville, Bloomington, White Bear Lake, and a larger form of Centerville. Anything else is just urban sprawl that really shouldn't have existed as anything but parts of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Brandon on January 16, 2013, 07:05:11 AM
Quote from: wphiii on January 15, 2013, 10:50:28 PM
City-suburb consolidation would absolutely be for the greater benefit in most cases for mid-size cities.

The real problem is, when you're dealing with a bunch of municipalities that all have their own elected officials and service providers (fire, police, sanitation, etc), that's a lot of people who'd be out of a job. It's for that reason that serious consolidation talks have never gotten off the ground here in Pittsburgh, and probably other places as well, which is a shame because a city-county merger would stand to benefit the entire region.

Even then it might not work, speaking from an Illinois point of view, as there are fire protection districts used by some of these municipalities, separate library districts, sanitary districts, and a myriad mess of overlapping school districts.  Name your special-use district, and it will be a problem in any city-county type merger in Illinois.  I'd guess that's why we've never seen on in the state.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Sykotyk on January 19, 2013, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on October 19, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
Pittsburgh should have annexed (my knowlege only applies to north side communities) the river communities of Bellvue/Avalon, Ross/Shaler Township, Millvale a good 20 years ago, those communities now have the same demographic negatives of the main city and you get no noticible benefit whan you cross the city limits.

Pittsburgh was a little late to the party compared to Philadelphia. Pittsburgh did get some surrounding land, but when they annexed Allegheny City (the north shore, where the stadiums are up to the first hill or so), the revolt was strong enough to change the rules. Now, the suburb has to agree to annexation. Which, will never happen. It's why Allegheny County can have 1.2 million, and the city of Pittsburgh makes up about 1/4th the population. Meanwhile, i don't know many people in the surrounding area that don't proudly display Pittsburgh paraphernalia and 'steel city' stuff. They obviously love the city, but not enough to be a part of it.
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: mapman1071 on February 06, 2013, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 24, 2012, 10:56:35 PM
Frank Lloyd Wright moved to Oak Park to escape the city.  Imagine that today!

Taliesin West, Frank LLoyd Wright's western home when built In 1937 was 10 miles North of Scottsdale (Northern Border At Indian School Road) and 5 miles West of what is now Fountain Hills at the base of the Mcdowell Mountain Range in the desert. Now it is surrounded on 3 sides by multi-million Dollar Homes and Mcdowell Mountain Preserve on the North Side, the driveway now forms part of N. 104th St (Alma School Road) and E. Cactus Road, Scottsdale, AZ
Title: Re: Annex the Suburbs!
Post by: Doctor Whom on February 07, 2013, 02:52:05 PM
This study (http://www.state.nj.us/dca/affiliates/luarcc/pdf/final_optimal_municipal_size_&_efficiency.pdf) indicates that the most cost-effective municipalities have populations in the range of 25,000 to 250,000, although the study also allows that YMMV.  This suggests to me that, far from establishing ever larger monolithic municipalities, we should think about carving up some of the big cities that we have, perhaps by setting up borough systems like London's (not New York's).