Jump to content

Sugar Tit sticks it to Greer


Spartan

Recommended Posts

The editorial is factually wrong. It states that Greenville would have to provide services in Spartanburg County. This is wrong on two counts. First, those areas wouldn't be in Spartanburg County, they would then be in Greenville County, and paying Greenville taxes. Second, the areas in Greer would get services from Greer, not either county.

Also, as Greer made future annexations into Spartanburg County, it would NOT mean that those new areas would change counties. Moving the city's boundaries and the County lines are completely separate.

What Greer is doing by requiring annexaton for sewer, is to prevent exactly what has already happened to Spartanburg (and the majority of SC cities for that matter). Providing city services without city taxes has led to stagnation of Spartanburg's boundaries, population and tax base.

Rural areas do not need sewer service. But as those areas develope and require such services, it is only logically that they become a part of the city that provides them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Spartan, you have made some excellent points. Are you aware that three (or four) compromises were indeed presented to County Council. These compromise proposals had been worked out jointly by Greer CPW and SSSD. Council turned down all of them ... so much for the opinions of the professionals, huh?! Council's action was an example of politics at it worst.

I was not aware of that. This was just a turf batte between Reidville and Greer. County Council should have kept to its own business. Professionals indeed. When it comes re-election time I might have to reconsider my vote.. ill have to see how my councilman voted first.

The editorial is factually wrong. It states that Greenville would have to provide services in Spartanburg County. This is wrong on two counts. First, those areas wouldn't be in Spartanburg County, they would then be in Greenville County, and paying Greenville taxes. Second, the areas in Greer would get services from Greer, not either county.

Also, as Greer made future annexations into Spartanburg County, it would NOT mean that those new areas would change counties. Moving the city's boundaries and the County lines are completely separate.

What Greer is doing by requiring annexaton for sewer, is to prevent exactly what has already happened to Spartanburg (and the majority of SC cities for that matter). Providing city services without city taxes has led to stagnation of Spartanburg's boundaries, population and tax base.

Rural areas do not need sewer service. But as those areas develope and require such services, it is only logically that they become a part of the city that provides them.

If the boundary was to be changed, it would likely not include ALL of Greer, but a large portion of it. Their city limits would not change, as you said, but IF it happened, there are likely some unincorporated parts of Spartanburg County that would be taken as well, and they woudl technically still need to be served by Greenville County, not Greer... though more than likely Greer would take on that responsibility.

The real issue (yet again) at teh root of this problem is South Carolina's backwards annexation laws. If they were less antiquated, we would not be in this situation.

The editorial did have a few bad facts, but it made a few good points too. Greer cannot expect everyone to work with them. Everyone has to be a player. When its obvious that the citizens in your community do not like a certain rule, it might be time to change it.

Like I said before, it irritates me to no end that County Council thinks that it is all powerful. They acted too fast, and did not give consideration to how dumb their move was. I still maintain that Greer won't do anything, but they are definitely making a strong point, and one that Council needs to listen too. I, for one, am not interested in losing Greer, as I have always considered it a part of my home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<When its obvious that the citizens in your community do not like a certain rule, it might be time to change it.>>

If the "rule" you are referring to is the annexation requirement for sewer, remember that is NOT a requirement of the city of Greer. The city does NOT control the sewer ... that would be CPW. Only CPW makes utility policiy.

I'm not sure the SHJ understands this (or maybe even County Council, for that matter). but CPW is a separate entity from the city and governed by an elected commission of it's own, not the city council. As for the "citizens" not liking the rule, most of us DO like it ... since it's there to protect our pocketbooks. To receive sewer service you must be a "stockholder" and the stockholders are all citizens of Greer. It's our business and we like it that way. Others are welcome to join us if they'd like, but they don't have too. It's our business (and yes, it's a business .. NOT a special purpose district with taxation authority like SSSD).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you can beat around the bush all you like, but you just restated, in legalese, that you must join the city of greer to recieve sewer service. Regardless of your take on the process of having sewer service form greer, the facts are than many people in both counties do not like greer's approach. Taylors considered incorporation due to greer. They had enough political will to get it on the ballot. That says alot to me, even though they did vote against incorporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you can beat around the bush all you like, but you just restated, in legalese, that you must join the city of greer to recieve sewer service. Regardless of your take on the process of having sewer service form greer, the facts are than many people in both counties do not like greer's approach. Taylors considered incorporation due to greer. They had enough political will to get it on the ballot. That says alot to me, even though they did vote against incorporation.

Spartan, I'm not trying to argue with you. There are many important points we agree on. I only mean to point out that what Greer CPW or the city Of Greer do should, as always, be what is in the best interest of the citizens who are the constituents of these two separate entities. It is not the responsibility of the people in Greer to provide service for anyone else just because they want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you ahve a valid arguement as well, but I think that reputations are earned for a reason, and Greer's is one of agressive annexation, much to the dismay of the people who live around it.

Its true that its not the "responsibility" of Greer to provide service for anyone else just because they want it. But the reality is that they do. That is why their city limits are so convaluted. That new school wanted sewer service, so Greer wants to give it to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you ahve a valid arguement as well, but I think that reputations are earned for a reason, and Greer's is one of agressive annexation, much to the dismay of the people who live around it.

Its true that its not the "responsibility" of Greer to provide service for anyone else just because they want it. But the reality is that they do. That is why their city limits are so convaluted. That new school wanted sewer service, so Greer wants to give it to them.

Keep in mind that it was the school district that came to Greer CPW ... and that they came because Spartanburg County told them to. It was not a case of Greer going out and soliciting the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isnt that always the case? Utility providers don't generally solicit things like that.

I'm not sure. But if people don't think that it was solicited, then why are they so ticked off at Greer? After all, it's not like Greer assigned to territory to CPW.

I visited with some friends who live in the now infamous "golden box." Knowing that with sewer comes development, they have great concern about the unregulated availability of sewer in their area. With the lack of zoning in the area, they expect the worse. Instead of acting to "preserve the rural nature" of the area as POAGA preached, they believe that resent actions will do just the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went back and checked the vote on this particular issue (it was in the paper) and here is how our council split the vote:

"In a 4-3 vote, Spartanburg County Council made plans to return the Sugar Tit and Abner Creek area to the Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Smae thing from the url=http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070213&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=702130342&SectionCat=NEWS01]Herald -Journal

POAGA says it will file another annexation petition with the right ratio of signers. I doubt they'll be successful since Greer will have unquestionably annexed areas by that point. It seems to me that they could still annex other properties into Reidville and still prevent Greer from annexing too much in the area but without messing up Greer's sewer right to that school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget, it wasn't only Greer that "won." The 15 property owners who were also part of this suit challenging the Reidville annexation also won. These property owners were either being forced to annex into Reidville or claimed to have been mislead into signing the petition.

I found it odd that there was no mention of these "golden box" residents in the SHJ article. It is my belief that most people who are anti-Greer are so because they are not getting the whole story. We hear a lot about the property owners against Greer, how about let's hear from those who are against POAGA and Reidville annexation.

Greer's annexations, all valid and voluntary, broke the arch attempted by the poaga group. The school is already well under construction. Looks like they must have their sewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have pretty much don't have a dog in this fight, I don't believe forcing someone to come into the city just to have sewer service is voluntary. It is valid, but there is a sense of coercion involved. My biggest question is what other types of services will these residents get? Trash, fire, police? Will these be city services or still mostly county? I admit to being uninformed of those issues.

I'm in favor of vibrant city centers, not just city limits that go up and down rural roads following the sewer trail. I guess what Greer is doing just doesn't conform to my vision of an "urban planet". Maybe more like a "Borg" planet to me ..... "resistance is futile."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have some valid points hub-city. My view is generally that cities should be able to annex when and where they can, because in SC there are very few options to do it. Spartanburg has hurt itself by not annexing more territory like Columbia, Charleston, Rock Hill, and Greer have done. So to some extent I think they should be able to do it.

I think that over agressive annexation has given Greer a bad image, which is why this issue is even around to start with. Greer says all of its annexations are 100% by request only- but thats because you have no other choise but to request annnexation. The result is the stringy spider-web look to Greer's municipal boundaries. Its a code enforcement nightmare as well as an emergency services ngihtmare (who do you call to get EMS services when you need them?). Greer should annex, but it should focus on annexing areas closer into its core to create cohesive neighborhoods and not a patchwork of parcels. This would allow for city wide planning at the level they are doing in its downtown neighborhoods- which is currently impossible since large portions are in Greenville and Spartanburg Counties.

What I'm saying here is that I would defend Greer's right to annex, but at the same time I criticize them for not using some forsight in their annexation patterns and creating the fear that exists in their neighbors. Most places have a municipal service rate and a county service rate for sewer... Greer could easly provide service without require immediate annexation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a good compromise, and exactly what needed to happen.

The Herald-Journal has much more detailed information about the agreement. Greer won'ot forcibly annex in that area, and the County will leave the sewer in the hands of Greer CPW- not SSSD. POAGA still isnt satisfied, but I think most everyone else should be. Hopefully this will lead to more cooperation between Green and Spartanburg County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a good compromise, and exactly what needed to happen.

The Herald-Journal has much more detailed information about the agreement. Greer won'ot forcibly annex in that area, and the County will leave the sewer in the hands of Greer CPW- not SSSD. POAGA still isnt satisfied, but I think most everyone else should be. Hopefully this will lead to more cooperation between Green and Spartanburg County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on your point of view on forcible annexation. Certainly they haven't used the 75% rule, but many people in that area regard Greer's agressive "annexation before sewer service" policy as "foricble" annexation, even though it is not technically "forcible." If Greer annexes that school, then in theory all of the properties in between the current limits and that property would need to be annexed to meet its regulations.

Greer needs to acknowledge that the policy that I mentioned above is the source of the harsh feelings in this argument. Were it not for that, POAGA would not exist.

Thats why this agreement is good. If it actually means that Greer will provide service and not mandate annexation immediately, they will make a lot of friends, and it will ultimately benifit them in the long run, as they annex the areas they serve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that in principle vic, but what I maintain is that the method Greer uses is not productive. It works from a financial stand point, but from a services, planning, and responsible government perspective, it does not. Please understand that I'm not saying Greer shouldn't annex every chance it gets. I'm saying that it should annex in a more orderly fashion. Look at a map of Greer's city limits. Its crazy. Greer wants to become a better palce to live, and it is sinking a lot of money into its downtown area and the adjacent neighborhoods... but its annexation patterns are to scattered around to do any cohesive sort of plan or project, in the areas that are no downtown, which ultimately does not benefit its residents.

Greer should do what Spartanburg has done. It should provide sewer service and require that the propoerty be annexed in the future. But Greer should actually use that tool to its advantage. This is where Spartanburg has failed. It has not forced those areas to live up to their agreement in the past, and that has hurt the City (though it supposedly is planning to in the future).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.