It seems that many of the most important cities in the U.S., at one time in their history, annexed a neighboring city of comparable prominence (by the standards of the time). The most famous example, of course, is the 1898 annexation of Brooklyn by New York. Other notable examples are Charlestown by Boston (1874) and Allegheny by Pittsburgh (1911). What other examples are there of city pairs, at one point more or less equal, that became a single city by this process? Are there any major examples more recent than 1911?
Also, what are some instances that didn't happen? For example, San Francisco never annexed Oakland, probably because while cross-water examples are apparently the most frequent, the distance across SF Bay is too great, even by today's standards, to make for a logical consolidation.
Others didn't happen because the neighboring city is in a different state (Philadelphia, Camden) or country (Detroit, Windsor). Still others (DFW, MSP, Tampa/St. Pete) seem to have been avoided because the inclination to consolidate waned, or the process became to difficult practically, or the cities just grew to have enough prominence individually that one wasn't clearly poised to absorb the other.
Finally, are there cases where the annexed city was actually more populous or important than the one it's now a part of?
Buda and Pest united in 1873.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 01, 2013, 01:24:42 PM
Buda and Pest united in 1873.
OK, a little far-flung from the U.S., but I'll take it. Plus it brings up another interesting case, where the new city has a new name that neither had before, whether by conflation of the old names or the contrivance of an unrelated new name.
In the U.S., this isn't too uncommon among smaller cities, particularly within larger urbanized areas, so perhaps let's limit these to the more important cities (like Budapest).
Winston-Salem comes to mind.
Several municipalities voted to be annexed into the City of Chicago in 1889 (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/53.html). The City had multiple annexations between 1837 and the 1920s (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3716.html). These were incorporated townships - towns (similar in function to cities and villages). These towns included: Hyde Park (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/621.html), Jefferson (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/668.html), Lake (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/713.html), and Lake View (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/714.html). Only one town adjacent to Chicago remains: the Town of Cicero (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/287.html) (not city, but similar in all functions, including council wards, to a city). Cicero is an interesting case as several parts seceded from the town to become their own cities (Oak Park, Berwyn) or become annexed to Chicago (Austin) (that could be a thread all its own - municipalities that seceded from a larger municipality).
Other municipalities were annexed at different times, including Morgan Park (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/842.html). Still others rejected annexation such as Blue Island (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/150.html) and Oak Park (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/917.html).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_Township,_Cook_County,_Illinois
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Township,_Cook_County,_Illinois
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero,_Illinois
Quote from: Brandon on February 01, 2013, 01:49:37 PM
Several municipalities voted to be annexed into the City of Chicago in 1889 (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/53.html). The City had multiple annexations between 1837 and the 1920s (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3716.html). These were incorporated townships - towns (similar in function to cities and villages). These towns included: Hyde Park (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/621.html), Jefferson (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/668.html), Lake (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/713.html), and Lake View (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/714.html). Only one town adjacent to Chicago remains: the Town of Cicero (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/287.html) (not city, but similar in all functions, including council wards, to a city). Cicero is an interesting case as several parts seceded from the town to become their own cities (Oak Park, Berwyn) or become annexed to Chicago (Austin) (that could be a thread all its own - municipalities that seceded from a larger municipality).
Other municipalities were annexed at different times, including Morgan Park (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/842.html). Still others rejected annexation such as Blue Island (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/150.html) and Oak Park (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/917.html).
Of the areas annexed by Chicago, was there one that was (or was poised to be) a prominent city in its own right? For example, NYC encompasses much annexed area besides the former city of Brooklyn, but only Brooklyn was, at the time of its absorption, a major separate entity. It never quite outpaced New York in growth of course, but in the mid-19th century, the two definitely constituted a notable city pair. Otherwise, there were smaller settlements like Williamsburg and Long Island City, but most of the annexed land was suburban or developing, or indeed still entirely rural. Chicago's annexations look to me to fit entirely into the second category, but I could be missing something.
^^ These were, as was Chicago at the time, developing cities. They were fully incorporated by the state legislature as municipalities. Granted that Chicago was the larger of any it annexed, it did annex these pretty much all at once. Had they not been annexed, they would still be fully incorporated municipalities with a much smaller Chicago in the middle.
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Others didn't happen because the neighboring city is in a different state
Kansas City and Kansas City. . .
The District of Columbia once contained multiple municipalities. Washington and Georgetown were independent of each other, but Georgetown was annexed into the City of Washington in 1895. Meanwhile, the City of Alexandria and a surrounding area then called "Alexandria County" was retroceded to Virginia in 1847, partly due to issues surrounding the slave trade.
In Quebec, the independent municipalities of Ville St-Jovite, Paroisse St-Jovite, Mont-Tremblant, and Lac-Tremblant-Nord consolidated into Ville de Mont-Tremblant in 2002, although Lac-Tremblant-Nord seceded again in 2006.
In Virginia, the City of Warwick was consolidated as part of the City of Newport News in 1958. Also in that area, in 1963 the City of South Norfolk consolidated with Norfolk County (itself separate from the City of Norfolk) to become the City of Chesapeake. The Chesapeake consolidation was undertaken in part to prevent the City of Norfolk from annexing Norfolk County.
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2013, 03:48:01 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Others didn't happen because the neighboring city is in a different state
Kansas City and Kansas City. . .
Or a different country:
Sault Sainte Marie and Sault Sainte Marie.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2013, 04:05:56 PM
In Virginia, the City of Warwick was consolidated as part of the City of Newport News in 1958. Also in that area, in 1963 the City of South Norfolk consolidated with Norfolk County (itself separate from the City of Norfolk) to become the City of Chesapeake. The Chesapeake consolidation was undertaken in part to prevent the City of Norfolk from annexing Norfolk County.
The City of Virginia Beach was once a small municipality (might have been a town and not a city, that distinction being very important in Virginia) that was literally along the beach, but in about 1964, the municipality merged with what was then Princess Anne County to create present-day Virginia Beach. This removed Princess Anne County from the maps, but perhaps more important to residents of the new city, it prevented the City of Norfolk from annexing any of Princess Anne County (as I understand it, Virginia cities could only annex adjoining unincorporated lands in a county, but not if those lands were in a city or town - past tense used because most annexations have been subject to a moratorium unless both the city and the county agree to the annexation (this moratorium has been in place for many years)).
Oak Cliff, which is basically the half of Dallas south of the Trinity River, was annexed by the city of Dallas in 1903. Today's population: 290,000.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2013, 04:05:56 PM
In Virginia, the City of Warwick was consolidated as part of the City of Newport News in 1958. Also in that area, in 1963 the City of South Norfolk consolidated with Norfolk County (itself separate from the City of Norfolk) to become the City of Chesapeake. The Chesapeake consolidation was undertaken in part to prevent the City of Norfolk from annexing Norfolk County.
The City of Virginia Beach was once a small municipality (might have been a town and not a city, that distinction being very important in Virginia) that was literally along the beach, but in about 1964, the municipality merged with what was then Princess Anne County to create present-day Virginia Beach. This removed Princess Anne County from the maps, but perhaps more important to residents of the new city, it prevented the City of Norfolk from annexing any of Princess Anne County (as I understand it, Virginia cities could only annex adjoining unincorporated lands in a county, but not if those lands were in a city or town - past tense used because most annexations have been subject to a moratorium unless both the city and the county agree to the annexation (this moratorium has been in place for many years)).
By that same process, the City of Chesapeake created itself from other pieces of the next county over. I read that stuff with great fascination a few days ago.
At one point, Newark, NJ made a play at East Orange, Vailsburg, Irvington, and Belleville. It was able to grab Vailsburg, but the failure to take Belleville ended up killing the chances at absorbing the other two cities, and basically set the modern boundaries.
Finally, Quebec has done a lot of this. Hull and Aylmer into Gatineau, Chicoutimi and Jonquiere (along with smaller La Baie) into Saguenay, etc.
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 01:30:41 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 01, 2013, 01:24:42 PM
Buda and Pest united in 1873.
In the U.S., this isn't too uncommon among smaller cities, particularly within larger urbanized areas, so perhaps let's limit these to the more important cities (like Budapest).
Stockholm, Sweden grew by a lot in the 20th century through some pretty large annexations. Much of what are considered its "western" and "southern" suburbs (and they mostly
look like suburbs) were annexed, though some municipalities to the north of "downtown" Stockholm (notably Solna and Sundbyberg) have not been annexed, and remain independent. Analogy (strange as it may sound) is the City of Los Angeles, which has some pretty huge "suburban" areas within its corporate limits, yet close-by is the City of Vernon, which is definitely not L.A.
Speaking of the City of Los Angeles, that is a municipality that has grown - a lot - by annexation. There's a great map from over 90 years ago that shows some of the L.A. annexations that are still recognizable today here (http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/archivedetail/20702/Map_of_Territory_Annexed_to_the_City_of_Los_Angeles_Prepared_under_the/Abell.html).
There's also a more-recent official L.A. annexation map here (http://navigatela.lacity.org/common/mapgallery/pdf/annex34x44.pdf) (.pdf, 1.87 MB).
Wouldn't the municipality being annexed have to agree to become part of the other city, either by action by the legislative body or a vote of the residents, or both?
When Louisville and Jefferson County merged, which I know is a separate issue. not all the incorporated cities in Jefferson County agreed to the merger and remain independent.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 01, 2013, 06:38:55 PM
Oak Cliff, which is basically the half of Dallas south of the Trinity River, was annexed by the city of Dallas in 1903. Today's population: 290,000.
Interesting; what was its population at the time of annexation?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 07:06:40 PM
Speaking of the City of Los Angeles, that is a municipality that has grown - a lot - by annexation. There's a great map from over 90 years ago that shows some of the L.A. annexations that are still recognizable today here (http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/archivedetail/20702/Map_of_Territory_Annexed_to_the_City_of_Los_Angeles_Prepared_under_the/Abell.html).
There's also a more-recent official L.A. annexation map here (http://navigatela.lacity.org/common/mapgallery/pdf/annex34x44.pdf) (.pdf, 1.87 MB).
There must be a corollary for L.A. What was the Brooklyn to California's New York? Hollywood? Was Hollywood that much of a partner city to L.A. when it was annexed?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2013, 08:55:09 PM
Wouldn't the municipality being annexed have to agree to become part of the other city, either by action by the legislative body or a vote of the residents, or both?
Not in the case of Allegheny, PA. Apparently, the vote was considered, and Allegheny did indeed object. However, its vote was counted cumulatively with that of Pittsburgh, which nullified the majority objection in Allegheny.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 01, 2013, 06:38:55 PM
Oak Cliff, which is basically the half of Dallas south of the Trinity River, was annexed by the city of Dallas in 1903. Today's population: 290,000.
I remember as a child having family members who referred to Oak Cliff as a completely separate entity from Dallas. They would address mail to Oak Cliff, or refer to someone as having been "from Oak Cliff, Texas." I was puzzled, but knew better than to ask questions.
I understand that the annexation was pretty contentious at the time.
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2013, 04:05:56 PM
In Virginia, the City of Warwick was consolidated as part of the City of Newport News in 1958. Also in that area, in 1963 the City of South Norfolk consolidated with Norfolk County (itself separate from the City of Norfolk) to become the City of Chesapeake. The Chesapeake consolidation was undertaken in part to prevent the City of Norfolk from annexing Norfolk County.
The City of Virginia Beach was once a small municipality (might have been a town and not a city, that distinction being very important in Virginia) that was literally along the beach, but in about 1964, the municipality merged with what was then Princess Anne County to create present-day Virginia Beach. This removed Princess Anne County from the maps, but perhaps more important to residents of the new city, it prevented the City of Norfolk from annexing any of Princess Anne County (as I understand it, Virginia cities could only annex adjoining unincorporated lands in a county, but not if those lands were in a city or town - past tense used because most annexations have been subject to a moratorium unless both the city and the county agree to the annexation (this moratorium has been in place for many years)).
By that same process, the City of Chesapeake created itself from other pieces of the next county over. I read that stuff with great fascination a few days ago.
One more former county over, Suffolk comprises the former Nansemond County, including the short-lived City of Nansemond.
Here's an oddity - how many cases are there where one municipality split in two and then later reunited?
The Town of Stamford, CT had a large portion carved out of it in 1893 to form the City of Stamford, CT. The city and town of Stamford for the next half century coexisted as two separate entities. Then, in 1949, the City of Stamford annexed the Town of Stamford and the two were reunited.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2013, 12:43:46 AM
Here's an oddity - how many cases are there where one municipality split in two and then later reunited?
The Town of Stamford, CT had a large portion carved out of it in 1893 to form the City of Stamford, CT. The city and town of Stamford for the next half century coexisted as two separate entities. Then, in 1949, the City of Stamford annexed the Town of Stamford and the two were reunited.
The Borough of Princeton, NJ just rejoined the Township.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2013, 08:55:09 PM
Wouldn't the municipality being annexed have to agree to become part of the other city, either by action by the legislative body or a vote of the residents, or both?
In the case of the four plus a part of one that joined Chicago in 1889, it was a vote in each municipality, as it was for Morgan Park later on. A few others voted and chose to stay independent.
I have to believe that when Omaha annexed South Omaha, Benson and Dundee in the early 20th century, Omaha wasn't much bigger than those three cities were. Of course, by the time Omaha annexed Millard in 1971 and Elkhorn in 2005, Omaha was much bigger than either of those.
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2013, 03:48:01 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Others didn't happen because the neighboring city is in a different state
Kansas City and Kansas City. . .
Yes, but Kansas City, KS is actually an example of this. Most of what is Kansas City today were formerly independent towns. You might recognize some of their names: Argentine, Rosedale, Turner, Armourdale...
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 09:01:17 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on February 01, 2013, 06:38:55 PM
Oak Cliff, which is basically the half of Dallas south of the Trinity River, was annexed by the city of Dallas in 1903. Today's population: 290,000.
Interesting; what was its population at the time of annexation?
Oh, it was small, but in 1903 the population of Dallas was small too.
If you're going to include New York annexing another city, you shouldn't leave Long Island City out.
Regarding Tampa annexing St Pete, that's highly unlikely. Pinellas County separated from Hillsborough in 1912(over bad roads), so any cities outside of Hillsborough County are pretty much untouchable. That'd be like New York City trying to annex White Plains, Glen Cove, or Long Beach.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 02, 2013, 07:57:28 AM
If you're going to include New York annexing another city, you shouldn't leave Long Island City out.
Regarding Tampa annexing St Pete, that's highly unlikely. Pinellas County separated from Hillsborough in 1912(over bad roads), so any cities outside of Hillsborough County are pretty much untouchable. That'd be like New York City trying to annex White Plains, Glen Cove, or Long Beach.
Why would they be untouchable? Plenty of cities cross county lines including the town in which I reside (both Kendall and Will Counties, Illinois).
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 02, 2013, 07:57:28 AM
If you're going to include New York annexing another city, you shouldn't leave Long Island City out.
I'm not leaving it out, though I chose Brooklyn as my example since it had been the third largest city in the nation (fourth at the time of annexation). Likewise, Charlestown was in important port settlement going back as far as Boston and New York, and Allegheny was a major industrial city in its region.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 02, 2013, 03:48:28 AM
Yes, but Kansas City, KS is actually an example of this. Most of what is Kansas City today were formerly independent towns. You might recognize some of their names: Argentine, Rosedale, Turner, Armourdale...
I think that, pretty much without exception, we will find a lot of formerly incorporated territory within any big city's current borders. I didn't mean to start a list of those, although I realize the line can be blurry. I thought about including the twin cities of Rochester and Carthage (NY), which merged in 1930 or so, but then I figured there would be tons of examples of small upstart burghs like this, battling for supremacy with one ultimately winning out. So I limited myself just to places that were already well grown-up with substantial history or importance of their own, relative to the time and place.
For example, if Boston were to annex Cambridge, that would be a great example, since Cambridge has been around forever, has a six-digit population and is a sometime county seat. And of course, if Minneapolis annexed St. Paul, that would be the supreme example.
I'm not sure I'd count something like Indianapolis annexing Speedway, however, or Chicago annexing Cicero, and definitely not something like Louisville annexing Glenview Manor! :-P
QuoteThe City of Virginia Beach was once a small municipality (might have been a town and not a city, that distinction being very important in Virginia) that was literally along the beach, but in about 1964, the municipality merged with what was then Princess Anne County to create present-day Virginia Beach.
January 1, 1963....same date that Chesapeake (previously mentioned by 1995hoo) came into being. Norfolk did 2 rounds of annexation in the 1950s, one in 1955 that took the rest of what was Norfolk County north of the East Branch Elizabeth River, and a second in 1958-59 that broached the northwest corner of Princess Anne County. Around the same time or shortly thereafter, they attempted to (and were involved in a lawsuit regarding) annex further into Norfolk County in a way that would completely encircle what was then South Norfolk. This lawsuit is what led to the creation of Chesapeake, meanwhile, Norfolk's encroachment into Princess Anne County led to the county's consolidation with Virginia Beach.
Not major cities, but Helena and West Helena, AR, consolidated as one city as of January 1, 2006.
Quote from: Brandon on February 01, 2013, 05:18:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2013, 03:48:01 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Others didn't happen because the neighboring city is in a different state
Kansas City and Kansas City. . .
Or a different country:
Sault Sainte Marie and Sault Sainte Marie.
Niagara Falls and Niagara Falls
Derby Lane and Stanstead
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 02, 2013, 07:57:28 AM
If you're going to include New York annexing another city, you shouldn't leave Long Island City out.
Regarding Tampa annexing St Pete, that's highly unlikely. Pinellas County separated from Hillsborough in 1912(over bad roads), so any cities outside of Hillsborough County are pretty much untouchable. That'd be like New York City trying to annex White Plains, Glen Cove, or Long Beach.
You mean like how New York annexed what is now Queens County, which was then united with Nassau County? Bronx County was also a part of Westchester County.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 02, 2013, 05:16:51 PM
Not major cities, but Helena and West Helena, AR, consolidated as one city as of January 1, 2006.
Yes, called Helena-West Helena. :spin:
In 1968, the city of Portsmouth, VA annexed part of the city of Chesapeake from the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River to Sterns Creek (now the city line between the two cities in the Churchland area) as well as everything north of Churchland to the Hampton Roads (the area of water between Portsmouth and Newport News). This area was also part of Norfolk County before becoming Chesapeake and now Portsmouth. Because of this, a new high school had to be built for the families still living in the Chesapeake city limits as the school they used to go to (Churchland High) was now in Portsmouth. This high school became Western Branch High (home of the Bruins), which was my and my wife's high school (me-class of 1980; her-class of 1985).
Although these cities may not be considered "major", this is one case that definitely belongs in this subject matter.
^^ Why would Chesapeake need a new high school? Wouldn't the school district boundaries still be the same regardless of annexation?
Quote^^ Why would Chesapeake need a new high school? Wouldn't the school district boundaries still be the same regardless of annexation?
Not in Virginia, where school district boundaries are tied to county/independent city lines.
Some states permit cities to expand across county lines while others don't--Kansas does (which is why Manhattan extends out of Riley and into Pottawatomie county), but Nebraska doesn't (my Nebraska relatives say this is why Omaha hasn't annexed Bellevue).
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2013, 07:58:56 PM
Quote^^ Why would Chesapeake need a new high school? Wouldn't the school district boundaries still be the same regardless of annexation?
Not in Virginia, where school district boundaries are tied to county/independent city lines.
OK. In Illinois (with the exception of Chicago) school districts are special-use tax districts with no respect to municipal or county boundaries. The municipal boundary changes, but the school district boundary does not.
While not in the United States, Toronto could be up for discussion, as the city has been involved with many annexations and mergers over the years.
Quote from: Dougtone on February 04, 2013, 07:10:09 AM
While not in the United States, Toronto could be up for discussion, as the city has been involved with many annexations and mergers over the years.
What was Toronto's Brooklyn? York?
Quote from: empirestate on February 04, 2013, 10:20:03 AM
Quote from: Dougtone on February 04, 2013, 07:10:09 AM
While not in the United States, Toronto could be up for discussion, as the city has been involved with many annexations and mergers over the years.
What was Toronto's Brooklyn? York?
North York - at the time of the great amalgamation of 1998, the prior City of North York was more populous than was the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_of_Toronto
I also STR that the first elected mayor of the pst-amalgamation City of Toronto was previously the mayor of North York.
Mike
Quote from: Dougtone on February 04, 2013, 07:10:09 AM
While not in the United States, Toronto could be up for discussion, as the city has been involved with many annexations and mergers over the years.
Speaking of Canada, the city of Thunder Bay, ON was formed in 1970 from the merger of the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur.
Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2013, 10:38:13 AM
And of course, if Minneapolis annexed St. Paul, that would be the supreme example.
This is obviously never going to happen, but Minneapolis has grown by annexation on more than one occasion.
The most notable example was back in the 19th century when it merged with the then-similarly-sized city of St. Anthony.
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2013, 06:40:11 PM
At one point, Newark, NJ made a play at East Orange, Vailsburg, Irvington, and Belleville. It was able to grab Vailsburg, but the failure to take Belleville ended up killing the chances at absorbing the other two cities, and basically set the modern boundaries.
There is nothing stopping this logical move from happening. The state has been encouraging municipal consolidation for many years.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 04, 2013, 12:52:48 PM
North York - at the time of the great amalgamation of 1998, the prior City of North York was more populous than was the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_of_Toronto
I also STR that the first elected mayor of the pst-amalgamation City of Toronto was previously the mayor of North York.
Mike
Toronto wasn't alone, Winnipeg also amalgated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Winnipeg_Act
Halifax did with Dartmouth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_of_Halifax,_Nova_Scotia
Montreal who also did some de-amalgations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Merger
Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2013, 10:38:13 AM
And of course, if Minneapolis annexed St. Paul, that would be the supreme example.
If that happened, we could solve the I-35 situation there.
Quote from: deanej on February 05, 2013, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2013, 10:38:13 AM
And of course, if Minneapolis annexed St. Paul, that would be the supreme example.
If that happened, we could solve the I-35 situation there.
Really? Suddently, nobody would care about losing the number 35 anymore, simply because their mailing address had a different city's name in it?
Quote from: deanej on February 05, 2013, 05:23:43 PM
If that happened, we could solve the I-35 situation there.
Maybe we could also rename the Minnesota Twins/Vikings/Wild/Timberwolves as Minneapolis Twins/Vikings/Wild/Timberwolves as well? ;)
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2013, 07:58:56 PM
Quote^^ Why would Chesapeake need a new high school? Wouldn't the school district boundaries still be the same regardless of annexation?
Not in Virginia, where school district boundaries are tied to county/independent city lines.
Identical to Maryland. School district boundaries, without exception, follow county (and in the case of Baltimore City, city) lines.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 03, 2013, 10:38:09 PM
Some states permit cities to expand across county lines while others don't--Kansas does (which is why Manhattan extends out of Riley and into Pottawatomie county), but Nebraska doesn't (my Nebraska relatives say this is why Omaha hasn't annexed Bellevue).
Based on some quick research into the matter, the reason Omaha can't annex into Sarpy County, or any of Douglas County's neighboring counties, is a 1966 decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court, Barton v. City of Omaha. They said a city of the metropolitan class, which I believe only includes Omaha and Lincoln (I don't know for sure about Lincoln, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was), cannot annex property in an adjoining county. I believe every other city, or village, can annex territory in neighboring counties. After all, Emerson is in 3 counties, and Tilden and Oxford, amongst others, are in 2.
I always think the city of Bellevue is weird, because it seems like a large chunk of it is simply the part of Omaha that went into Sarpy County. Bryan High School is technically in Bellevue, but it's Omaha Public Schools, so they always call it Omaha Bryan in sports reports, which makes things more confusing.
Quote from: Brandon on February 02, 2013, 09:38:45 AM
Why would they be untouchable? Plenty of cities cross county lines including the town in which I reside (both Kendall and Will Counties, Illinois).
Oh, I get that, believe me. Don't forget that I grew up on Long Island which is in the shadow of the Five Boroughs. I grew up thinking cities that cross county lines was the norm. But I also realize Nassau County broke away from one of them, and Pinellas County broke away from Hillsborough because they felt neglected by the rest of Hillsborough.
Quote from: deanej on February 02, 2013, 05:55:37 PM
You mean like how New York annexed what is now Queens County, which was then united with Nassau County? Bronx County was also a part of Westchester County.
Ahh, but there was no Nassau County until
after western Queens was annexed by New York City. There wasn't even a Bronx County until after the Borough was established.
Quote from: DandyDan on February 06, 2013, 06:59:17 AMBased on some quick research into the matter, the reason Omaha can't annex into Sarpy County, or any of Douglas County's neighboring counties, is a 1966 decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court, Barton v. City of Omaha. They said a city of the metropolitan class, which I believe only includes Omaha and Lincoln (I don't know for sure about Lincoln, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was), cannot annex property in an adjoining county. I believe every other city, or village, can annex territory in neighboring counties. After all, Emerson is in 3 counties, and Tilden and Oxford, amongst others, are in 2.
Thanks for looking up the background on this issue. I found the relevant court decision (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11209380561941125175&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) online, and it appears the court held that Omaha (and other cities classified as metropolitan under Nebraska state law) cannot annex land in a foreign county because it has an authority to plat that smaller incorporated municipalities in Nebraska lack, and the power to plat can be held by a city in relation to only one county.
QuoteI always think the city of Bellevue is weird, because it seems like a large chunk of it is simply the part of Omaha that went into Sarpy County. Bryan High School is technically in Bellevue, but it's Omaha Public Schools, so they always call it Omaha Bryan in sports reports, which makes things more confusing.
Yup--north Bellevue is in effect a continuation of Omaha's street grid and in many places the county line road that separates Douglas and Sarpy counties (and Omaha and Bellevue) is a collector-type road with more or less identical residential subdivisions on either side. Bellevue also has its own historic district just north of Offutt AFB, and there is a large area of middle-class single-family housing in the hills leading to the Fontenelle Forest (originally developed largely as off-base private-economy housing for Air Force officers stationed at Offutt), so it is surprisingly heterogeneous in urban form. My relatives say that Fort Crook Boulevard, opened just before World War II as a four-lane relocation of US 75, was the first divided highway in Nebraska.
Quote from: empirestate on February 04, 2013, 10:20:03 AM
Quote from: Dougtone on February 04, 2013, 07:10:09 AM
While not in the United States, Toronto could be up for discussion, as the city has been involved with many annexations and mergers over the years.
What was Toronto's Brooklyn? York?
Scarborough was pretty populous when it was annexed as well.
And I am surprised that nobody has brought up Los Angeles and it's huge acquisition of land via annexation during the middle 20th century. The entire San Fernando Valley was grabbed up (six cities + unincorporated lands, IIRC), an area that now covers more than one half of the city and houses about 1/3 of its population. All in all, a pretty impressive grab.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on February 06, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
And I am surprised that nobody has brought up Los Angeles and it's huge acquisition of land via annexation during the middle 20th century. The entire San Fernando Valley was grabbed up (six cities + unincorporated lands, IIRC), an area that now covers more than one half of the city and houses about 1/3 of its population. All in all, a pretty impressive grab.
I did wonder about LA earlier in the thread. If it annexed Long Beach that would be a perfect example; did a similar thing actually happen in the San Fernando grab? (San Fernando itself is still its own city, as I recall.)
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on February 06, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
And I am surprised that nobody has brought up Los Angeles and it's huge acquisition of land via annexation during the middle 20th century. The entire San Fernando Valley was grabbed up (six cities + unincorporated lands, IIRC), an area that now covers more than one half of the city and houses about 1/3 of its population. All in all, a pretty impressive grab.
Someone did. Here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8623.msg200865#msg200865).
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 06, 2013, 09:22:56 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 02, 2013, 09:38:45 AM
Why would they be untouchable? Plenty of cities cross county lines including the town in which I reside (both Kendall and Will Counties, Illinois).
Oh, I get that, believe me. Don't forget that I grew up on Long Island which is in the shadow of the Five Boroughs. I grew up thinking cities that cross county lines was the norm. But I also realize Nassau County broke away from one of them, and Pinellas County broke away from Hillsborough because they felt neglected by the rest of Hillsborough.
Quote from: deanej on February 02, 2013, 05:55:37 PM
You mean like how New York annexed what is now Queens County, which was then united with Nassau County? Bronx County was also a part of Westchester County.
Ahh, but there was no Nassau County until after western Queens was annexed by New York City. There wasn't even a Bronx County until after the Borough was established.
Bronx county was established in 1914 previously portions of the county were either Westchester or New York County.
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 06, 2013, 10:16:49 PM
Bronx county was established in 1914 previously portions of the county were either Westchester or New York County.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Not only do I live in The Bronx, but in the same building as the borough historian. :-)
But I don't really see the parallel between the establishment of Bronx County and the annexation of Brooklyn by New York. Cities all over the nation have expanded their borders by annexing all kinds of surrounding territory, but this thread is really about something rather more specific. Then again, this being the Off-Topic board, I guess I shouldn't be worried if some of the posts within the thread are themselves off-topic!
How about Thunder Bay, Ontario?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2013, 09:06:23 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on February 06, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
And I am surprised that nobody has brought up Los Angeles and it's huge acquisition of land via annexation during the middle 20th century. The entire San Fernando Valley was grabbed up (six cities + unincorporated lands, IIRC), an area that now covers more than one half of the city and houses about 1/3 of its population. All in all, a pretty impressive grab.
Someone did. Here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8623.msg200865#msg200865).
Just curious, what was the City of Los Angeles' most recent annexation (not having time to check the .pdf file)?
:hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2013, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 06, 2013, 10:16:49 PM
Bronx county was established in 1914 previously portions of the county were either Westchester or New York County.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Not only do I live in The Bronx, but in the same building as the borough historian. :-)
But I don't really see the parallel between the establishment of Bronx County and the annexation of Brooklyn by New York. Cities all over the nation have expanded their borders by annexing all kinds of surrounding territory, but this thread is really about something rather more specific. Then again, this being the Off-Topic board, I guess I shouldn't be worried if some of the posts within the thread are themselves off-topic!
At some point someone posted something that basically said "cities can't annex parts of other counties"; were that the case, the Bronx and Queens would not be part of NYC.
Seattle annexed Ballard in 1907. Seattle invested in a good water supply -- bought watershed, built dams, built pipelines. Ballard didn't, and was having all sorts of trouble coming up with a way to supply water to its growing population. Seattle refused water hookups unless they could annex the city of Ballard.
Quote from: deanej on February 07, 2013, 11:51:32 AM
Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2013, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 06, 2013, 10:16:49 PM
Bronx county was established in 1914 previously portions of the county were either Westchester or New York County.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Not only do I live in The Bronx, but in the same building as the borough historian. :-)
But I don't really see the parallel between the establishment of Bronx County and the annexation of Brooklyn by New York. Cities all over the nation have expanded their borders by annexing all kinds of surrounding territory, but this thread is really about something rather more specific. Then again, this being the Off-Topic board, I guess I shouldn't be worried if some of the posts within the thread are themselves off-topic!
At some point someone posted something that basically said "cities can't annex parts of other counties"; were that the case, the Bronx and Queens would not be part of NYC.
Virginia does not allow cities to annex parts of other cities, and the General Assembly has effectively imposed a moratorium on cities annexing nearby unincorporated parts counties - unless the county and city agree to the annexation.
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Also, what are some instances that didn't happen? For example, San Francisco never annexed Oakland, probably because while cross-water examples are apparently the most frequent, the distance across SF Bay is too great, even by today's standards, to make for a logical consolidation.
In California, cities can't cross county lines, and Oakland is in a separate county from S.F. So it would require the state legislature to approve a merger, which is not likely to happen.
San Francisco County used to include what is now the bay side of San Mateo County, until 1856. The counties were split to prevent S.F. from annexing the towns to the south and becoming too powerful.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: deanej on February 07, 2013, 11:51:32 AM
Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2013, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 06, 2013, 10:16:49 PM
Bronx county was established in 1914 previously portions of the county were either Westchester or New York County.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Not only do I live in The Bronx, but in the same building as the borough historian. :-)
But I don't really see the parallel between the establishment of Bronx County and the annexation of Brooklyn by New York. Cities all over the nation have expanded their borders by annexing all kinds of surrounding territory, but this thread is really about something rather more specific. Then again, this being the Off-Topic board, I guess I shouldn't be worried if some of the posts within the thread are themselves off-topic!
At some point someone posted something that basically said "cities can't annex parts of other counties"; were that the case, the Bronx and Queens would not be part of NYC.
Virginia does not allow cities to annex parts of other cities, and the General Assembly has effectively imposed a moratorium on cities annexing nearby unincorporated parts counties - unless the county and city agree to the annexation.
Which is vastly different when compared to a state like Illinois where annexation of unincorporated land only needs the approval of the city council/village board and the property owner. However, that said, an area 60 acres or less may be forcibly annexed into a municipality if bounded by said municipality and other municipalities. It's a bit more of a free-for-all here. Annexation in Illinois leads to some very bizarre municipal shapes. Oh, and did I mention that a municipality may annex through a forest preserve without annexing the forest preserve?
Quote from: kkt on February 07, 2013, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Also, what are some instances that didn't happen? For example, San Francisco never annexed Oakland, probably because while cross-water examples are apparently the most frequent, the distance across SF Bay is too great, even by today's standards, to make for a logical consolidation.
In California, cities can't cross county lines, and Oakland is in a separate county from S.F. So it would require the state legislature to approve a merger, which is not likely to happen.
San Francisco County used to include what is now the bay side of San Mateo County, until 1856. The counties were split to prevent S.F. from annexing the towns to the south and becoming too powerful.
What I want to know is how the hell San Diego could annex the completely non-contiguous Chula Vista area.
Quote from: Brandon on February 07, 2013, 12:46:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 07, 2013, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Also, what are some instances that didn't happen? For example, San Francisco never annexed Oakland, probably because while cross-water examples are apparently the most frequent, the distance across SF Bay is too great, even by today's standards, to make for a logical consolidation.
In California, cities can't cross county lines, and Oakland is in a separate county from S.F. So it would require the state legislature to approve a merger, which is not likely to happen.
San Francisco County used to include what is now the bay side of San Mateo County, until 1856. The counties were split to prevent S.F. from annexing the towns to the south and becoming too powerful.
What I want to know is how the hell San Diego could annex the completely non-contiguous Chula Vista area.
The detailed maps that I've seen show a very narrow strip of City of San Diego that runs north-south through San Diego Bay that connects the San Ysidro area with the rest of the city to the north.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 07, 2013, 12:46:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 07, 2013, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Also, what are some instances that didn't happen? For example, San Francisco never annexed Oakland, probably because while cross-water examples are apparently the most frequent, the distance across SF Bay is too great, even by today's standards, to make for a logical consolidation.
In California, cities can't cross county lines, and Oakland is in a separate county from S.F. So it would require the state legislature to approve a merger, which is not likely to happen.
San Francisco County used to include what is now the bay side of San Mateo County, until 1856. The counties were split to prevent S.F. from annexing the towns to the south and becoming too powerful.
What I want to know is how the hell San Diego could annex the completely non-contiguous Chula Vista area.
The detailed maps that I've seen show a very narrow strip of City of San Diego that runs north-south through San Diego Bay that connects the San Ysidro area with the rest of the city to the north.
Mike
I'm surprised that never got challenged in court. Shoestring annexations like that (especially under water) usually get challenged around here.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 07, 2013, 11:25:38 AM
Just curious, what was the City of Los Angeles' most recent annexation (not having time to check the .pdf file)?
According to that map, it was in 1918. What amazes me is the freaking huge size of some of the annexations. The San Fernando one was 170 sq mi for crying out loud.
There is another map (http://navigatela.lacity.org/common/mapgallery/pdf/annex34x44.pdf) showing pretty much all the annexations to date (up to 2004 anyway.) What gets me about that is there are detachments as well. That kind of thing doesn't fly around here.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 12:33:24 PM
Virginia does not allow cities to annex parts of other cities, and the General Assembly has effectively imposed a moratorium on cities annexing nearby unincorporated parts counties - unless the county and city agree to the annexation.
This has been mentioned a couple times in this thread, but I don't know if everyone is aware of Virginia's special situation with regard to cities and counties. It's such an odd concept that some may not understand the whole concept. With that in mind, here is a cliff notes version for the others...
In Virginia, a city is so named when it has 5,000 people*. Big deal, right? Yep, because VA cities are completely independent of their surrounding county. Here I live in Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio. I have a city income tax but pay a county sales tax. City services but the county sheriff declares snow emergencies, etc, etc. In Virginia a city is treated as its own county, to the point that it plays hell with people trying to do genealogical research because they have their own courts and crap. On weather maps and related things you can usually see tiny bubbles inside the counties marking off the cities. All of this makes annexation a testy issue, because unlike in other places, in this case a county physically shrinks (losing the tax dollars as well.)
* a city under 50,000 people can revert to town status, making it basically like any city in the normal US.
AFAIK there's never been even a serious proposal to merge Minneapolis and St. Paul. They're actually quite different culturally and have been so since the begining and have distinct downtown areas a long ways a part. Minnepolis was built adjacent to the free waterpower source at St. Anthony Falls, and St. Paul was was the last feasable spot to load and unload boats, above that point the blufffs are too close to the river to allow for a staging area and then St. Anthony Falls prevented further navigation.
Quote from: 6a on February 07, 2013, 05:09:39 PM
In Virginia, a city is so named when it has 5,000 people*.
Is this supposed to be 50,000?
Quote from: kkt on February 07, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: 6a on February 07, 2013, 05:09:39 PM
In Virginia, a city is so named when it has 5,000 people*.
Is this supposed to be 50,000?
Nope, 5,000 is correct. A town of population between 5,000 and 5,900 may hold a referendum (http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/PDFs/revert.eligible.pdf) about becoming a city, but 5,000 is definitely the trigger.
edit: the 5,000 for city/50,000 to revert came about because, since cities are effectively banned from annexation, their tax base erodes as people migrate outward. In a smaller city, usually in a rural area, this is a big problem since there isn't much to go around in the first place.
Also, trivia tidbit time, Arlington, VA (home of the Pentagon) is actually a county and not a city. It doesn't even have an incorporated town within its borders.
Still fogged. If the place's population increases from 4,999 to 5,000 it becomes a city, but then it becomes a town again because it's under 50,000?
The city has the option to revert to town status at 50,000. There are many cities in Virginia, including my own, have never reached 50,000. I don't know if becoming a city at 5,000 is automatic either, because I'm not aware of the town of Front Royal (population 13,000) ever having been a city.
Quote from: kkt on February 07, 2013, 07:18:17 PM
Still fogged. If the place's population increases from 4,999 to 5,000 it becomes a city, but then it becomes a town again because it's under 50,000?
Sorry about the confusion, 5,000 makes a town a city, but a city has the option to revert to town status until it reaches 50,000 people.
Quote from: Takumi on February 07, 2013, 07:53:54 PM
The city has the option to revert to town status at 50,000. There are many cities in Virginia, including my own, have never reached 50,000. I don't know if becoming a city at 5,000 is automatic either, because I'm not aware of the town of Front Royal (population 13,000) ever having been a city.
After thought, Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, so there might be some legislative BS in your case. But the 5,000 rule is a pretty good base, to be fair.
Quote from: 6a on February 07, 2013, 06:55:23 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 07, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: 6a on February 07, 2013, 05:09:39 PM
In Virginia, a city is so named when it has 5,000 people*.
Is this supposed to be 50,000?
Nope, 5,000 is correct. A town of population between 5,000 and 5,900 may hold a referendum (http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/PDFs/revert.eligible.pdf) about becoming a city, but 5,000 is definitely the trigger.
edit: the 5,000 for city/50,000 to revert came about because, since cities are effectively banned from annexation, their tax base erodes as people migrate outward. In a smaller city, usually in a rural area, this is a big problem since there isn't much to go around in the first place.
Also, trivia tidbit time, Arlington, VA (home of the Pentagon) is actually a county and not a city. It doesn't even have an incorporated town within its borders.
Interesting, 5,000 to incorporate. In Illinois, 2,500 is the minimum for incorporating as a city (http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=006500050HArt.+2+Div.+2&ActID=802&ChapterID=14&SeqStart=10100000&SeqEnd=11700000); however, villages are much easier to incorporate (http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=006500050HArt.+2+Div.+3&ActID=802&ChapterID=14&SeqStart=11700000&SeqEnd=13900000) at any population. Cities have aldermen or councilmen and a mayor, and villages have trustees and a president; otherwise, there really is no difference. Hence, you have villages like Bolingbrook and Schaumburg that are over 70,000 in population and cities like Cairo and East Peoria which are much smaller. The municipal rights are the same, and home rule kicks in automatically unless rejected by the population at 25,000. Smaller municipalities may obtain home rule after a referendum.
Talking about out more free-for-all type attitude for annexation, here some interesting parts from the Illinois Municipal Code (http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=006500050HArt.+7+Div.+1&ActID=802&ChapterID=14&SeqStart=64600000&SeqEnd=70000000):
QuoteFor the purposes of this Article, any territory to be annexed to a municipality that is located in a county with more than 500,000 inhabitants shall be considered to be contiguous to the municipality if only a river and a national heritage corridor separate the territory from the municipality. Upon annexation, no river or national heritage corridor shall be considered annexed to the municipality.
Basically, you can have gaps between parts of your municipality if they cross a river or "national heritage corridor" (i.e. I&M Canal), but only in a county larger than 500,000. Got that? Take care to read all the county-level population restrictions that are basically meant to apply to one county at the time the act was created (be it DuPage or Cook County). An example:
QuoteSec. 7-1-18.5. Maintenance of sanitary sewers. A municipality located in a county with a population of 3,000,000 or more to which territory is annexed after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly is responsible for the operation and maintenance of any existing sanitary sewerage system serving the annexed territory, unless the sanitary sewerage system is under the jurisdiction of another unit of local government other than the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.
This only is meant to apply to Cook County, but written as if there might actually be other counties in the state that big.
Quote from: Takumi on February 07, 2013, 07:53:54 PM
The city has the option to revert to town status at 50,000. There are many cities in Virginia, including my own, have never reached 50,000. I don't know if becoming a city at 5,000 is automatic either, because I'm not aware of the town of Front Royal (population 13,000) ever having been a city.
The Town of Leesburg, Loudoun County, had a population of over 42,000 in 2010, yet it remains a town and not a city. Some distance east, the Town of Herndon, Fairfax County, had a population of over 22,000 in 2010.
Compare and contrast to the (tiny) City of Manassas Park (formerly part of Prince William County), which had a 2010 population of only a little over 14,000. Similarly, the City of Falls Church (formerly part of Fairfax County) had a 2010 population of almost 13,000 (though Falls Church has a public school system that might just beat-out the excellent (but much larger) Fairfax County Public Schools adjacent). The City of Fairfax (surrounded by, but not part of, Fairfax County) had a 2010 population of about 22,000 - the City of Fairfax actually contracts with Fairfax County to run the public schools in the city.
As I understand it, conversion from a town to a city in Virginia is
not automatic. I don't really understand why a town would willingly make the change - as a town, the public schools, judicial system, Commonwealth's Attorney, sheriff and jail remain in the hands of the county, while the town still gets to control things like land use and zoning.
In some Virginia cities, the city relies on the Commonwealth's Attorney from an adjoining jurisdiction. The Commonwealth's Attorney for Prince William County also serves the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park; and the Commonwealth's Attorney for Fairfax County also serves the City of Fairfax.
While we're at it, there is this info from the Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/geoguide.html (also downloadable as a PDF for all states)
It describes the peculiarities of incorporated places and minor civil divisions (towns, townships, etc.) for each state, including info about population thresholds where applicable, and whether incorporated places are dependent or independent of their parent subdivisions. Some of the states (IL, OH) have pretty convoluted situations, such as cities that are separate from townships in one county, but subordinate to them in another–the same city has a different status in different counties.
(Side question: this document mentions certain places in West Virginia that are "coextensive but not coterminous" with their parent MCD's. What's the difference?)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 10:42:22 PMIn some Virginia cities, the city relies on the Commonwealth's Attorney from an adjoining jurisdiction. The Commonwealth's Attorney for Prince William County also serves the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park; and the Commonwealth's Attorney for Fairfax County also serves the City of Fairfax.
Cities in Virginia used to be classified into cities of the second class, which shared court systems and certain constitutional officers with adjacent counties, and cities of the first class, which were completely independent. When the distinction was abolished, cities that had been cities of the second class were allowed to continue the arrangement.
Quote from: Brandon on February 07, 2013, 04:33:31 PM
I'm surprised that never got challenged in court. Shoestring annexations like that (especially under water) usually get challenged around here.
Closer to home (and I see that you're a fellow Illini), take a look at the shenanagans that Gurnee and Waukegan both pulled during the 1980s and 1990s. Waukegan grabbed a bunch of multi-million dollar properties in a narrow strip along River and O'Plaine roads (south of IL-120) well into an area that was previously known as "unincorporated Libertyville". Those property owners were/are furious about it and their property values dived by 30% overnight. For those who don't know, Waukegan is a dump. Furthermore, on a map, it basically looks as if Waukegan sprouted a leg and reached out to grab up these wealthy properties to shore up their declining tax base. They weren't even in the same township, not that it matters.
Then there's Gurnee, which has grown geographically by leaps and bounds, also grabbing up affluent areas south of IL-120 that thought they bought into (affluent) Libertyville. Merit Club (where Michael Jordan golfs) and the neighborhoods around it come to mind.
In neither case did the property owners support annexation, but it was shoved down their throats anyhow. Even middle-income neighborhoods with houses worth $250k saw property taxes increase by $1800/yr. overnight - just for the "honor" of being annexed by the Village of Gurnee. With no additional services to show for it. That's right: none. Trade the county sheriff (who does a good job) for the a-holes on the Gurnee PD and everything else stays the same.
Annexation in Illinois can be incredibly crooked. These are merely 2 examples that I know of.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 03, 2013, 10:38:09 PM
Some states permit cities to expand across county lines while others don't--Kansas does (which is why Manhattan extends out of Riley and into Pottawatomie county), but Nebraska doesn't (my Nebraska relatives say this is why Omaha hasn't annexed Bellevue).
The city of Dallas extends into Collin, Denton, Rockwall and Kaufman counties. The latter two thanks to Lake Ray Hubbard, which is entirely within Dallas city limits.
And in Texas, school district boundaries and city boundaries are independent of each other. Prosper ISD students, for example, come from the city limits of Frisco, Little Elm, Celina and McKinney.
According to the US census, the fastest growing city in California was Santa Clarita, located 30 miles north of Los Angeles (the LA city limits to the south), with a gain of 15 percent over the year 2012 from annexation of unincorporated residential areas. Same is true for my hometown Indio, which was the state's 5th fastest growing to added 4 percent by annexation. The housing bubble burst in the late 2000's slowed construction of new homes and sales of existing homes, the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.
Quote from: Mike D boy on May 15, 2013, 02:58:02 PMthe recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.
so unemployed people are less sexy?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2013, 03:01:06 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on May 15, 2013, 02:58:02 PMthe recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.
so unemployed people are less sexy?
LOL, agentsteel :-P Cities throughout Cal. grew slower as a result, and some cities opted to annex nearby county jurisdiction areas for purposes to generate more tax revenue, and these newly-annexed neighborhoods may wanted city public services to serve them.
The leading areas of population growth in the early 2010's was the San Francisco bay area (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara) counties where the heart of the global high-tech economy is; while the bedroom community-suburban Riverside and San Bernardino counties of southern California remained in the top 10 fast-growing list. The three counties north of Sacramento: Placer (i.e. Roseville), Sutter and Yuba (the Yuba City area) too.
Quote from: Mike D boy on May 15, 2013, 02:58:02 PM
According to the US census, the fastest growing city in California was Santa Clarita, located 30 miles north of Los Angeles (the LA city limits to the south), with a gain of 15 percent over the year 2012 from annexation of unincorporated residential areas. Same is true for my hometown Indio, which was the state's 5th fastest growing to added 4 percent by annexation. The housing bubble burst in the late 2000's slowed construction of new homes and sales of existing homes, the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.
You mentioned the unincorporated areas annexed by these cities; did they also annex any prominent incorporated areas?
Quote from: Mike D boy on May 15, 2013, 02:58:02 PM
According to the US census, the fastest growing city in California was Santa Clarita, located 30 miles north of Los Angeles (the LA city limits to the south), with a gain of 15 percent over the year 2012 from annexation of unincorporated residential areas. Same is true for my hometown Indio, which was the state's 5th fastest growing to added 4 percent by annexation. The housing bubble burst in the late 2000's slowed construction of new homes and sales of existing homes, the recession affected population growth in the early 2010's.
To be completely picky, the estimates to which you are referring came from the California Department of Finance, not the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau's latest estimates for cities should come out sometime this month; while there should be no reason to think their estimate will be much different in this case, the two agencies have in the past differed quite wildly. California has generally estimated higher than the Census Bureau; the 2000 Census showed the state estimates during the 1990s were closer to reality, while the 2010 Census showed the federal estimates during the 2000s were closer to reality.
Quote from: empirestate on May 15, 2013, 09:39:40 PM
You mentioned the unincorporated areas annexed by these cities; did they also annex any prominent incorporated areas?
No. Santa Clarita was originally formed from several comparable, distinct, but unincorporated towns (Valencia, Newhall, and Saugus among others) and has continued to annex developed, but unincorporated areas in the Santa Clarita Valley.
Columbus absorbed the older settlement Franklinton across the river early in the 19th century. Neither were "major" by today's standards, but Franklinton was the county seat, and I believe it was roughly in competition with Westerville and Newark as the largest settlement in central Ohio. Columbus, on the other hand, was a brand-new planned city, plopped down artificially to become the new capital.
Thanks for correcting me on the information source, DT. Both state and federal population estimates will vary, until we know for sure the exact populations, like the US census held every 10 years. City and county governments need to upkeep on projected populations to better serve their jurisdictions to upgrade public services for the common good.
The reason why Los Angeles annexed a great deal of land (i.e. the formerly incorporated communities of Hollywood, Watts, Venice and San Pedro) and the then-rural agrarian San Fernando Valley which was mostly urbanized by the late 1940's has much to do with acquisition of rights of water supply services, especially after the completion of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. In San Pedro's case has more to do with the opening of the Port of Los Angeles adjacent to the port of Long Beach. The city of L.A. is over 500 (504?) square miles (470 land, 34 water) and home to 3.8-3.9 million inhabitants.
Two other US cities: Oklahoma City, OK (it's city limits extends to rural expense of land to 621 square miles) and a greater municipal claim of undeveloped land is Juneau, Alaska at 3,255 square miles! larger than the tiny states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Both cities are state capitals, yet Juneau also an Alaskan borough with a total population of 32,000 is only less than one percent developed.
Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
It seems that many of the most important cities in the U.S., at one time in their history, annexed a neighboring city of comparable prominence (by the standards of the time). The most famous example, of course, is the 1898 annexation of Brooklyn by New York. Other notable examples are Charlestown by Boston (1874) and Allegheny by Pittsburgh (1911). What other examples are there of city pairs, at one point more or less equal, that became a single city by this process? Are there any major examples more recent than 1911?
Also, what are some instances that didn't happen? For example, San Francisco never annexed Oakland, probably because while cross-water examples are apparently the most frequent, the distance across SF Bay is too great, even by today's standards, to make for a logical consolidation.
Others didn't happen because the neighboring city is in a different state (Philadelphia, Camden) or country (Detroit, Windsor). Still others (DFW, MSP, Tampa/St. Pete) seem to have been avoided because the inclination to consolidate waned, or the process became to difficult practically, or the cities just grew to have enough prominence individually that one wasn't clearly poised to absorb the other.
Finally, are there cases where the annexed city was actually more populous or important than the one it's now a part of?
I think it's funny cities like Minneapolis/Saint Paul have so many suburbs and Austin has so few. I lived in the "MUD" so I had an Austin address but didn't live "in" Austin, yet my mail carrier said it was a rural route, even though it really should have been a suburb.
Quote from: vtk on May 16, 2013, 01:03:22 AM
Columbus absorbed the older settlement Franklinton across the river early in the 19th century. Neither were "major" by today's standards, but Franklinton was the county seat, and I believe it was roughly in competition with Westerville and Newark as the largest settlement in central Ohio. Columbus, on the other hand, was a brand-new planned city, plopped down artificially to become the new capital.
Major by contemporary standards is fine. By today's standards, even prime example Brooklyn doesn't rank. :-)
Quote from: empirestate on May 16, 2013, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 16, 2013, 01:03:22 AM
Columbus absorbed the older settlement Franklinton across the river early in the 19th century. Neither were "major" by today's standards, but Franklinton was the county seat, and I believe it was roughly in competition with Westerville and Newark as the largest settlement in central Ohio. Columbus, on the other hand, was a brand-new planned city, plopped down artificially to become the new capital.
Major by contemporary standards is fine. By today's standards, even prime example Brooklyn doesn't rank. :-)
Well, I'm not sure what qualified as major at the time. Without doing hard research, I think Franklinton/Columbus was prominent but not quite dominant in central Ohio, but small potatoes compared to the bustling port cities Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Marietta at the edges of the state.