Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gs3

Greenville Annexation

Recommended Posts


That is good news. I hope that others will follow. When I moved from the city to the county several years ago, my property taxes really didn't change that much (as a percentage of property value) when I take into account garbage pickup, higher water fees, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gsupstate! :thumbsup:

I like this quote : "We've got a lot of people who are just really excited about what's going on downtown and consider ourselves more Greenvillians than we associate ourselves with the county,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this link, gsupstate! I read the article earlier this morning and was so excited I couldn't wait to see the discussion about it on UP. :yahoo:

This is another HUGE positive move for the City, and as wellen said, hopefully one of several to come in the near future. The boost to the tax base will be valuable to the City's continual beautification efforts. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quite telling that these mere 52 homes, is the largest annexation of occupied homes since the 1960's. It is good to see the city start to focus on this though. Hopefully, more will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you want to know something. I hope that this isn't true in what one of the county council member said. "They're not going into the real blighted areas," Norris said. That would be truely DISASTEROUS

to the city's plan. Picking who they want in the club. But I hope with what the mayor said is something

that will calm everyones nerves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenville doesn't need to annex for sake of a population number. The city has so many good things going on now. Quality before quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you want to know something. I hope that this isn't true in what one of the county council member said. "They're not going into the real blighted areas," Norris said. That would be truely DISASTEROUS

to the city's plan. Picking who they want in the club. But I hope with what the mayor said is something

that will calm everyones nerves.

I don't buy that at all. This neighborhood voluntarily annexed into the city. The neighborhoods on the westside and other blighted areas won't (and shouldn't) voluntarily annex because the income level there isn't enough to pay the city's higher taxes. Its really doing them a favor by not forcing them to annex and just letting them be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the City's point of view, I've always heard that a single family house needs to be valued at around $200,000 for the tax revenue to be a net gain. Anything lower than that, the city ends up paying more for services to the area than receives in tax revenue.

(Not a comment on the argument, just trying to give some context)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the City's point of view, I've always heard that a single family house needs to be valued at around $200,000 for the tax revenue to be a net gain. Anything lower than that, the city ends up paying more for services to the area than receives in tax revenue.

(Not a comment on the argument, just trying to give some context)

Interesting info to know. :thumbsup: Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the City's point of view, I've always heard that a single family house needs to be valued at around $200,000 for the tax revenue to be a net gain. Anything lower than that, the city ends up paying more for services to the area than receives in tax revenue.

(Not a comment on the argument, just trying to give some context)

The City of Simpsonville did a study and found out that the figure for them was between $225,000-$250,000. As a result, annexing residential areas usually does not make financial sense, as municipal services serve residential areas much more than non-residential areas. Local governments pay for services through taxes on non-residential uses.

Of course, multi-family residential is a different story, as it is cheaper to provide services on a per unit basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The City of Simpsonville did a study and found out that the figure for them was between $225,000-$250,000. As a result, annexing residential areas usually does not make financial sense, as municipal services serve residential areas much more than non-residential areas. Local governments pay for services through taxes on non-residential uses.

Of course, multi-family residential is a different story, as it is cheaper to provide services on a per unit basis.

This is why I tend to agree with the way Greenville has annexed so far. The city has somewhat ignored population numbers and gone after the real dollars by annexing Greenridge (major retail), The Point (major retail), Millenium (corporate headquarters), ICAR (corporate headquarters), etc, etc....all of which pay far more taxes than multiple single family homes ever could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenville doesn't need to annex for sake of a population number. The city has so many good things going on now. Quality before quantity.

I agree and disagree. I agree that numbers aren't the real key for cities, as I explained in my healthy cities post. We all know that there are more to cities than municipality population numbers. But like it or not, 98% of people out there judge how big they think a city is by 2 things: 1. the skyline, and 2. The city population. Unfortunately, Gville is not well represented by either of these. Gville has to be one of the most under represented cities in the country when it comes to city population reflecting it's true "size." I have heard that Greer is now larger in area that Greenville. To me this is insane! If you look at population numbers, Gville had over 66,000 residents in 1960, it has fallen every census since then. Yet the county population has tripled. I think Gville does need to annex, inpart so that the city can get some of the recognition for the area's success. Those 98% of people have to learn the truth about Gville somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I looked it up, and it hasn't tripled. But it has gone from 209,776 in 1960 to over 407,000 in 2005. Nearly double! By contrast, charleston county had a 1960 population of over 216,000, yet is now only 320 something. richland county was right at 200, 000 and now has only 330 something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Not discounting Greenville County's growth at all, but remember that both Columbia and Charleston are located at the edge of their counties, meaning that much of the population overflow will go to adjoining counties. Greenville, on the other hand, is centrally located to its county, so the vast majority of suburban growth stays within Greenville County. At least Greenville has that going in its favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is true, but Greenville county is very narrow. And the Growth in neighboring Spartanburg and Anderson Counties have also been strong. The Powdersville area for example is in Northeast Anderson county has been exploding, and it is only a few miles form Gville. Remember that these three counties combined now have a population over 850,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that map, almost all of Charleston's significant pop. lies within it's county. Cola's pop is more split, but still the vast majority is in Richland. This is true in Gville county as well, but no more so than the in other two. There ahs been significant growth just over the borders in both anderson and spartanburg counties over the past ten years that this map does not reflect (although I'm sure the same could be said for the other BIG 2). It will be interesting to see this map when the numbers come out for 2010, but I would expect to see much more infill in southern pickens from Easley to Clemson, and Northeast Andeson, as well as western Sptbg south of Greer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Columbia's growth is not just represented by Richland County...It is in Lexington County also, so when u compare Greenville County to Richland u minus well include Lexington county in there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that map, almost all of Charleston's significant pop. lies within it's county. Cola's pop is more split, but still the vast majority is in Richland. This is true in Gville county as well, but no more so than the in other two. There ahs been significant growth just over the borders in both anderson and spartanburg counties over the past ten years that this map does not reflect (although I'm sure the same could be said for the other BIG 2). It will be interesting to see this map when the numbers come out for 2010, but I would expect to see much more infill in southern pickens from Easley to Clemson, and Northeast Andeson, as well as western Sptbg south of Greer.

The multi-nodal identity of the Upstate makes it somewhat difficult to tell where Greenville's sprawl stops and Spartanburg's or Anderson's begin with those two cities being economic centers in the their own right, although less so than Greenville. In contrast, Lexington, Cayce, and West Columbia in the Columbia metro are Lexington County suburbs, and Moncks Corner (Berkeley County) and Summerville (Dorchester County) are suburbs of Charleston, and these suburbs wouldn't have significant growth in the absence of the dominant cities of their respective metro areas. At any rate, I think Columbia and Charleston capture a disproportionate amount of their sprawl in their primary counties (especially Columbia; practically half of the region's growth is in Lexington County), in contrast to Greenville. The way political lines get drawn is just a funny thing, I guess. But geography contributes less so to this phenomenon in the Upstate than it does in the Columbia and Charleston areas--which works in Greenville's favor from a statistics point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree. I agree that numbers aren't the real key for cities, as I explained in my healthy cities post. We all know that there are more to cities than municipality population numbers. But like it or not, 98% of people out there judge how big they think a city is by 2 things: 1. the skyline, and 2. The city population. Unfortunately, Gville is not well represented by either of these. Gville has to be one of the most under represented cities in the country when it comes to city population reflecting it's true "size." I have heard that Greer is now larger in area that Greenville. To me this is insane! If you look at population numbers, Gville had over 66,000 residents in 1960, it has fallen every census since then. Yet the county population has tripled. I think Gville does need to annex, inpart so that the city can get some of the recognition for the area's success. Those 98% of people have to learn the truth about Gville somehow.

I very much liked your post with the ice cream analogy, distortedlogic. :thumbsup: To companies that do research and demographic checks indepth though, a skyline and population size (city limits) are not as important. Companies know Greenville is here and understand it's the epicenter of a powerful million plus region. This explains why a city with 55K like Greenville has powerful national retailers (Pottery Barn, PF Changs, Whole Foods, Coach, etc, etc) that our largest ciy of 120K doesn't have. Companies dig much deeper than just city limit numbers, which is the reason my company chose Greenville when we decided to open a Southeast office. Companies from retailers to maunfacturers realize GV is the center of such a populous region and act accordingly. Increasingly in the new millenium, companies are also looking for quality of life, something Greenville offers in abundance! :thumbsup: I've lived in cities far larger than Greenville and had to endure less quality of life. Quantity does not equal quality, some cities never realize this, fortunately Greenville does. :thumbsup:

On a side note, because it seems fitting, did anyone ever read the book Megatrends 2000? It was written in the late nineties as a prediction of major social change that would happen in the new millenium. One was basically the reemergence of the person vs. mass. And basically it believed people would choose to live in smaller cities with higher quality of life, shop at small boutiques with unique offerings as opposed to department stores with large quantities of every item, stay in small boutique hotels with 20 rooms vs hotels with 1,500 rooms, want to attend colleges with enrollments of 3,000 vs universities of 18,000. Look around, this has been coming to fruition. I believe this cultural shift has been very beneficial to places like Greenville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, I know many of these companies and individuals are looking at the beauty of the region and how well the City fits into the surrounding terrain. The options are endless with foothills, mountains, lakes, and plains all right here, and directly in the middle of two booming large cities (Atlanta & Charlotte). On top of that, there are so many cultural benefits here that can't be found in such quantity elsewhere. I could go on and on... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it IS good to know that companies do their homework. I guess another example of this would be Carmax. The Greenville store was here for about 5 years before Cola got theirs. They go largely on population base (of a region). I guess I was thinking more of the general populace however. Most people go by the skyline and city pops when judging a cities size. It would be nice to get over the 100k mark, if for no other reason than the noticeability. Cities over 100k are considered by most people to be on a higher level, just because of that designation. These cities names are larger on maps and globes, get more attn from travel books, etc. None of this matters to us because we all know better, and actually look beyond those designations. Probably 98% of people don't. That said, I agree with your points gsupstate and skyliner. They are well made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I share your sentiments concerning the travel brochures, maps and globes, etc. designations. There are cities with 200K+ populations, but have smaller urbanized areas than our Big 3, so it appears to the casual observer that these places are bigger than our metro areas, but that isn't the case. Unfortunately, it is municipal population that most people go by when judging the size of a city; nobody knows what an urbanized area is except demographers and us urban geeks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.