Jump to content

A Case for Changing SC's Annexation Laws


monsoon

Recommended Posts

This whole annexation debate brings up a lot of questions?

1) Why on earth would the state want to stifle growth of cities due to density, particularly larger cities?

2) Why does it make it so easy for new cities to incorporate while leeching on other cities' or county services (law enforcement, waste, and sewer)

3) What (better yet, WHO IS AT TO GAIN) is there to gain by maintain such screwed-up and ass-backwards laws in the state?

Hi Leonard,

Here is a viewpoint I've voiced before that few agree with.

Greenville has an incredible downtown, with a high level of detail and amenities because it hasn't annexed. What Greenville has done is annexed only small areas where the city can gain major tax dollars...retail and corporate office areas. These types of areas pump major dollars into the cities pockets, but need very little in the way of services, compared to sprawling neighborhoods that pump very LITTLE into city pockets yet require major expenditures. Greenville has an extremely healthy tax base, and is able to have a highly desirable and detailed urban core. Had Greenville done major annexations of surrounding areas, I'm not sure this would have been the case. In the case of Greenville, it's a metro of 600K and the centerpoint of a CSA of over a million, and hasn't skipped a beat. It's 56K population hasn't slowed it's urban area growth. On the contrary, retailers and companies that area almost never found in smaller cities, are here in force (Hyatt, Westin, Whole Foods, etc).....most not represented in the states largest city. City population means very little other than a sign on a highway marking a boundary. This is the reason that many successful cities in the US have tried to put growth limits in place.......a small city with a good tax base for it's citizens that allows a high quality of life, beats a larger city that struggles with funds any day.

Now, my above thoughts are obviously not why these annexation laws were put into place. Spartan is right on with his history of annexation laws. My point is that Greenville has been smart enough to work around these laws and achieve a very desirable, quality life and above average growth for it's metro. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gsupstate, you do make some good points, but there are other points that should be taken into consideration as well, including:

1) A more equal spreading-out of the tax burden, which reduces fiscal disparities

2) A city is much more than just its downtown

3) Reigning in sprawl (which feeds into #2)

I honestly do not think that, in Greenville's case, lack of annexation positively correlates with retail/restaurant strength and diversity because the city still would have been the primary city of a 1 million+ urban region; I think the two factors are unrelated. I think Charleston alone demonstrates this (and it also has a fantastic downtown in several respects, so I think that part is unrelated as well). At most, Greenville's city leaders were more focused on downtown due to lack of annexation, but that doesn't mean that both annexation and downtown revitalization could not have been pursued simultaneously; there are too many examples across the nation that show us this.

Currently, I've begun reading Inside Game, Outside Game by David Rusk, former mayor of Albuquerque, NM and somewhat of an expert on urban issues. He argues that "high elastic" cities (those which can more easily expand their borders) often come out better in certain categories (not something relatively superficial like retailers and restaurants), such as school and residential integration, than "low elastic" cities. Bond ratings are also important. Greenville's is an A1, compared to Aa2 for Charleston and Columbia. It's even possible that taking more of the county into the city could have a positive effect on mitigating crime (and according to the Greenville News, violent crimes are on the rise in the area). So I would argue that city population means much more than just "a sign on a highway marking a boundary." Also, I don't think that cities are trying to limit growth as much as they are trying to actually control it. All in all, I think it is better to pursue annexation when feasible then not. This doesn't mean that Greenville, or any other "low elastic" city, is unsuccessful, but that there are more benefits to annexation than simply a bragging number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Krazeeboi's take on this. Charleston shows that you can do both, have a great economy and city core as well as pursue aggressive annexation. Greenville acknowledges as much by seeking annexations where they are financially viable. Financially viable is what ern1981 is referring to, I think.

Greenville has added 242 acres in 2006, nearly all of it commercial areas. These will boost tax revenues significantly, without adding much in the way of expenses. From 1986-2000, Gville's borders expanded very, very little. Since 2000, it has added around 1.5 square miles give or take.

Greenville did focus on it's DT because it was so difficult to annex, but probably still would have done so, even if it had been more aggressive on annexation prior to 2000.

There is the potential for a competition of sorts between Mauldin and Greenville for the lucrative Woodruff Road area. That might flare up in 2007. Now that Gville is now close to reaching the Mauldin city limits in a couple of areas (already meeting in the Laurens Rd. area), it will be interesting to see if the city finds new areas to annex in the next few years.

Greenville's low city population does cause people to view the area as much smaller than it is. Mayor White has said that, and visitor's often make that comment.

EDIT: According to the Gville Journal, 1400 acres or a litle over 2 square miles have been annexed into Greenville from 2000-2005. That doesn't include the 242 acres from 2006.

Edited by vicupstate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenville acknowledges as much by seeking annexations where they are financially viable. Financially viable is what ern1981 is referring to, I think.

Greenville has added 242 acres in 2006, nearly all of it commercial areas. These will boost tax revenues significantly, without adding much in the way of expenses. From 1986-2000, Gville's borders expanded very, very little. Since 2000, it has added around 1.5 square miles give or take.

Pretty much what I said in my post. I agree vicupstate.

Greenville has found a way to work around the law to still increase it's tax base with very good sources of revenue, while not annexing massive amounts of land.

No one has yet explained or given instances where the law has hurt Greenville. Sure the population is small, but seriously guys, companies don't really look at municipal populations. They look at metro demographics and regional demographics. The small population didn't stop my company and I from choosing Greenville over other SC cities. It didn't stop Westin, Hubbell, Michelin, Hyatt, PFChangs, Whole Foods, Timken, BMW, Harolds, Flemings, Ducati, etc. (none of which are present in our states largest, that is twice Greenville's size). It didn't stop West End Field. It didn't stop the USPro Championship from choosing Greenville. It hasn't held back it's tourist numbers. It hasn't slowed new school construction. It hasn't slowed growth at Greenville Tech or Furman. It hasn't kept Clemson from establishing a campus here. It didn't keep Liberty Bridge or the parks or riverwalks from being built. It didn't slow down RiverPlace or Wachovia Place or Poinsett Corners or The Fieldhouse or Mills Mill or Brick Street or etc, etc, etc. It didn't stop this city from having the states largest bank and a top 50 bank nationally. It hasn't hurt quality of life.

My point is, Greenville's quality of life is extremely high, so while yes, a larger municipal number would be good in a pissing contest, what would it really do? I would seriously like to know how a larger number would make Greenville "better"? Please? But please provide SPECIFICS (not opinions) where the municipal population has held back Greenville or where a larger municipal population would make Greenville better.

I find it interesting that one of the world's highest standards of living can be found in one of the world's smallest countries...Luxembourg......if you haven't been, you should go. Quality of life is through the roof, yet the country is barely the size of any typical US city in square mileage.

Edited by gsupstate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think that cities are trying to limit growth as much as they are trying to actually control it.

No, my words were correct. Limit, not control. All cities should work to control growth, but many have worked to put a strict limit in place on population. You should read up on it. Many smaller cities (enclaves) have tried to enact a definite (maximum) limit of a number of people that can live in the city to control quality of life. Several cities have been taken to court over this as it's been viewed as unconstitutional. I have a few books that deal with this subject matter. I'll find and post links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has yet explained or given instances where the law has hurt Greenville.

I wouldn't necessarily say "hurt," but I think the bond rating is an example where Greenville could do better. This essentially goes back to the fiscal disparities I spoke of earlier. Roughly 55,000 people are paying taxes for over 300,000 who are eating up the infrastructure. Secondly, sprawl capture is less easier to do--which exacerbates sprawl. Sure, sprawl inside the city limits is the same as sprawl outside the city limits, but at least it can be controlled if part of the actual municipality (not to mention the increased tax base). This leads me to believe that it may be harder for Greenville to develop truly urban places outside of downtown, harder than it already is for the typical midsized Sunbelt city. Thirdly, duplication of services is a possible issue. There are other factors (which I have no numbers for) that negatively correlate with low elastic cities, such as economic segregation, racial segregation, regional fragmentation, etc. Most of this applies to SC as a whole with our archaic annexation laws, but some can be applied to Greenville in particular.

I'd also be interesting in seeing the links about cities trying to restrict growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't necessarily say "hurt," but I think the bond rating is an example where Greenville could do better. This essentially goes back to the fiscal disparities I spoke of earlier. Roughly 55,000 people are paying taxes for over 300,000 who are eating up the infrastructure. Secondly, sprawl capture is less easier to do--which exacerbates sprawl. Sure, sprawl inside the city limits is the same as sprawl outside the city limits, but at least it can be controlled if part of the actual municipality (not to mention the increased tax base). This leads me to believe that it may be harder for Greenville to develop truly urban places outside of downtown, harder than it already is for the typical midsized Sunbelt city. Thirdly, duplication of services is a possible issue. There are other factors (which I have no numbers for) that negatively correlate with low elastic cities, such as economic segregation, racial segregation, regional fragmentation, etc. Most of this applies to SC as a whole with our archaic annexation laws, but some can be applied to Greenville in particular.

I'd also be interesting in seeing the links about cities trying to restrict growth.

Well, that didn't fully answer my question. No facts, more opinion ("that leads me to believe")

My question was "how has the lack of annexation hurt and how can annexation make Greenville better"? Specific facts?

On bond ratings, the last time I checked....Greenville, Columbia and Charleston all were AA from Standard and Poors. Greenville (County) was actually the best at AAA.

It's not just 55,000 paying the taxes for 300,000. It's the city of 55,000 receiving sales tax and hospitality tax from those 300,000 due to the fact the best shopping corridors and commercial areas have been selectively annexed by the city.

Sprawl is sprawl. I know many cities with large municipal boundaries and terrible sprawl....Virginia Beach comes to mind.

Duplication of services....maybe. I don't have clear data on this. Maybe you have some? Unfortunately, duplication of services is a constant in the US. That's another subject, but seems as a whole, cities, counties, states, federal, etc all duplicate service. Too much government, IMO. :)

I don't see municipal boundaries seriously affecting segregation. Visit Jackson, MS sometime....in the city limits....I-55 North is the dividing line. You live west of this line, chances are you are black. You live east of this line, chances are you are white. If you're Asian, Hispanic or any other, you probably don't live in Jackson. Unfortunate but true.

So I still don't see the hard evidence????

On the record, I'm not opposed to annexation, nor am I for it. It's sort of non issue. I guess I'm playing devils advocate. I see everybody jumping on this "SC cities must annex" kick, and my question is very simply, how will that translate into better lives? No one has really answered that yet.

Speaking for Greenville, it's pretty darn great now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that didn't fully answer my question. No facts, more opinion ("that leads me to believe")

My question was "how has the lack of annexation hurt and how can annexation make Greenville better"? Specific facts?

Well, I only said "that leads me to believe" in reference to one particular area. But I think the point stands. I think a well-rounded city is one where urbanity can be found all throughout, not just downtown. I also don't think the option to live an urban lifestyle should be limited to downtown. Of course a strong downtown will make it possible for urbanity to extend beyond the core, but that can't happen if much of the developed areas aren't even in the city (because the county surely isn't concerned with urbanity).

On bond ratings, the last time I checked....Greenville, Columbia and Charleston all were AA from Standard and Poors. Greenville (County) was actually the best at AAA.

According to Moody's, Greenville's is an A1 and Charleston and Columbia have a rating of Aa2.

It's not just 55,000 paying the taxes for 300,000. It's the city of 55,000 receiving sales tax and hospitality tax from those 300,000 due to the fact the best shopping corridors and commercial areas have been selectively annexed by the city.

How about property taxes of the city vs. property taxes of the county? Taxes are actually cheaper in the city of Charleston than they are in Charleston County.

Sprawl is sprawl. I know many cities with large municipal boundaries and terrible sprawl....Virginia Beach comes to mind.

Virginia is a different beast altogether. The state's independent city status places it in a unique category.

However, it can be said that since the sprawling areas are already located within the city, they don't have the option to incorporate to form what has been termed an "anti-city." The mess going on in James Island now attests to this. They really don't have enough (potential) revenue to provide municipal services, but they want to give Riley the finger by incorporating, so who benefits?

Duplication of services....maybe. I don't have clear data on this. Maybe you have some? Unfortunately, duplication of services is a constant in the US. That's another subject, but seems as a whole, cities, counties, states, federal, etc all duplicate service. Too much government, IMO. :)

We can take Charlotte as an example here. The city and the county have a consolidation of some services (school district, police protection). Also, the rules that NC in general has in place typically prevent the annexation battles (an indicator of regional fragmentation) that so often occur here.

I don't see municipal boundaries seriously affecting segregation. Visit Jackson, MS sometime....in the city limits....I-55 North is the dividing line. You live west of this line, chances are you are black. You live east of this line, chances are you are white. If you're Asian, Hispanic or any other, you probably don't live in Jackson. Unfortunate but true.

It's true that we still see this in several cities, even those that liberally annex, and of course there are several other factors at play when it comes to this. However, there are definitely some trends when it comes to segregation indices that population/annexation. A lot of this is coming from the book that I'm now reading (and it's a lot of information), so I can't readily link this information to an online source.

On the record, I'm not opposed to annexation, nor am I for it. It's sort of non issue. I guess I'm playing devils advocate. I see everybody jumping on this "SC cities must annex" kick, and my question is very simply, how will that translate into better lives? No one has really answered that yet.

Speaking for Greenville, it's pretty darn great now.

Perhaps a detailed analysis should be done just for SC (the closest we have is the article mentioned in the first post in this thread); I'm not volunteering, but I'm just making the recommendation. :) Until then, I can only speak of the general advantages and disadvantages of annexation (or lack thereof). But here are two online sources that I can point to that address this:

The Exploding Metropolis: Why Growth Management Makes Sense

Annexation and the Fiscal Fate of Cities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Greenville has more urban areas that just downtown and I dare say lack of annexation has forced the city to grow from within.....hence Verdae (South Carolinas largest development to date). All within the municipal boundaries. You've failed to hare what has been being said......the city HAS annexed much of the deveoping areas. It just annexed CU-ICAR / Millenium Campus / The Point / South Financial Campus / Greenridge / Magnolia Park / Verdae....all the hotest growth zone in the Upstate if not the state. So the city isn't letting all of the development occur in the county.

Still no answer on how Greenville has been hurt by lack of annexation or how it will be helped by annexation.

While I applaud you trying to answer the best you knew how, still no facts or specifics. The specific you've shown is bond rating, and with Greenville at AA, that's only step down from the very best AAA, so that's really a moot point.....it isn't like the bond rating is B or C or junk. And thanks for the links, though they are rather broad and general. They do not address any specific cities.

Can you or anyone answer with specifics? Facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a better way to put things would be that greenville is doing a very good job now at annexation more so than in the past and hopefully they will keep trying to get these "hot spot" areas into the city. It would be better i think if our annexation laws were more like north carolinas. Maybe that will change. And yes verdae is probably the largest developement going on in the state, but i dont think we have seen the other developements get fully cranked up just yet like ICAR, and south financial. There is still a lot of area there to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Greenville has more urban areas that just downtown and I dare say lack of annexation has forced the city to grow from within.....hence Verdae (South Carolinas largest development to date). All within the municipal boundaries. You've failed to hare what has been being said......the city HAS annexed much of the deveoping areas. It just annexed CU-ICAR / Millenium Campus / The Point / South Financial Campus / Greenridge / Magnolia Park / Verdae....all the hotest growth zone in the Upstate if not the state. So the city isn't letting all of the development occur in the county.

Still no answer on how Greenville has been hurt by lack of annexation or how it will be helped by annexation.

Well then, aren't those examples of annexation helping the city? Didn't you just answer your own question? Or do you think the city might actually benefit from NOT annexing those areas?

And as a sidenote: Noisette in Charleston is actually the state's largest development, encompassing roughly 3,000 acres (I've read that it's supposedly the largest urban redevelopment project in the nation).

While I applaud you trying to answer the best you knew how, still no facts or specifics. The specific you've shown is bond rating, and with Greenville at AA, that's only step down from the very best AAA, so that's really a moot point.....it isn't like the bond rating is B or C or junk. And thanks for the links, though they are rather broad and general. They do not address any specific cities.

It would really be hard to give a lot of specifics; that would take too much time that I don't really have at the moment. Furthermore, access to that information might not be as simple as doing a search on Google. For instance, I have no idea if residential or economic segregation information in Greenville is readily available, and even then that same information would have be obtained for other SC cities in order to make a comparison. In terms of duplication of services, maybe considering how many PSDs exist within a county relative to the population would shed some light on that.

As far as the bond ratings go, it's true that A1 isn't a bad rating (it's described as upper medium grade). But consider Winston-Salem, a city that had a very comparable urbanized area population as Greenville in 2000. The city's municipal population is around 190,000, its bond rating is Aaa (described as prime, maximum safety), and its tax base has a market value of $14 billion.

As it concerns regional fragmentation, I will note that Greenville is not at a major disadvantage within the county, as there are only five other municipalities within the county so it's not really boxed in like many Rustbelt cities are. However, as development continues to spread further and further throughout the county, expect annexation wars to flare up.

I'll try to share some things I've learned as I go through this book. A lot of it is rather extensive though. But you're making me study, and I like that. :) Also, have you read the report cited in the first post in this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mayor White has stated that he very frequently has to 'explain' why Greenville's population is so small, and that the area as a whole is really much bigger. More annexation (and thus a higher population) would show the city closer to it's true size. Wouldn't it be better if he could devote that precious time to talking about Greenville's strengths?

No one is saying it is an unsurmoutable or 'economic death trap', we all know there are more representative numbers out there. However, does anyone think that Charlotte would be where it is today, if it had not expanded it's borders as it did?

After the next census, Greenville might rank as low as 6th in a list of largest SC cities. Eventually it could fall out of the top ten altogether. Can that be good from a profile/economic development standpoint? I think not.

Also, having a larger tax base to spread the burden around has obvious advantages. If Greenville and Charleston both want to build a $10mm project, it's going to cost each taxpayer less in Charleston. This situation often necessitates getting the County involved. Doing so adds a very different mindset, and an additional "chef' in the kitchen, that can and does get messy sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that SC cities are hurt by having low populations simply by not being ranked in studies and statistics etc. One instance was the study that we talked about last month that included Charleston and Columbia, but not Greenville or Spartanburg. All of us know that these places should be in these studies, as we have significant urban cores. The probablem is that 100,000 is a frequent cut off point.

You also start showing up on lists for which you may not otherwise be considered... all of this gets the name out there. A city's population that truely reflects its size is nuch easier for people to understand. Its that image that people get when they think of a small town with 50,000, versus a city with a population of 150,000.

Greenville, NC has a higher population than Greenville, SC.... but we all know which is the larger of the two. If we had accurate population figures, Greenville, SC would have a figure of well over 100,000.

The same could be true with Spartanburg. It is in reality much larger than Rock Hill, but Rock Hill's annexation policies in the past have proven to be fruitful for them. Their population statistic (60,000 in '05) would make you think that Rock Hill is larger than Greenville (57,000) or Spartanburg (39,000).

Cities provide urban services, and in the Upstate's case, our cities provide these services to a much larger population than they have. Spartanburg, for example, suffers from high poverty and low incomes within the city limits. The reality is that this is simply an unfortunate geographical arragement. The higher income people are still there, but just beyond the city limits. This arrangement puts an unnecessary burden on the low income people, and makes the City's financial arrangements more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spartanburg, for example, suffers from high poverty and low incomes within the city limits. The reality is that this is simply an unfortunate geographical arragement. The higher income people are still there, but just beyond the city limits. This arrangement puts an unnecessary burden on the low income people, and makes the City's financial arrangements more difficult.

This reflects the point about economic segregation that I mentioned earlier, as well as fiscal disparities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that SC cities are hurt by having low populations simply by not being ranked in studies and statistics etc. One instance was the study that we talked about last month that included Charleston and Columbia, but not Greenville or Spartanburg. All of us know that these places should be in these studies, as we have significant urban cores. The probablem is that 100,000 is a frequent cut off point.

You also start showing up on lists for which you may not otherwise be considered... all of this gets the name out there. A city's population that truely reflects its size is nuch easier for people to understand. Its that image that people get when they think of a small town with 50,000, versus a city with a population of 150,000.

Greenville, NC has a higher population than Greenville, SC.... but we all know which is the larger of the two. If we had accurate population figures, Greenville, SC would have a figure of well over 100,000.

The same could be true with Spartanburg. It is in reality much larger than Rock Hill, but Rock Hill's annexation policies in the past have proven to be fruitful for them. Their population statistic (60,000 in '05) would make you think that Rock Hill is larger than Greenville (57,000) or Spartanburg (39,000).

Cities provide urban services, and in the Upstate's case, our cities provide these services to a much larger population than they have. Spartanburg, for example, suffers from high poverty and low incomes within the city limits. The reality is that this is simply an unfortunate geographical arragement. The higher income people are still there, but just beyond the city limits. This arrangement puts an unnecessary burden on the low income people, and makes the City's financial arrangements more difficult.

Most excellent post Spartan. You covered all the bases very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, aren't those examples of annexation helping the city? Didn't you just answer your own question? Or do you think the city might actually benefit from NOT annexing those areas?

And as a sidenote: Noisette in Charleston is actually the state's largest development, encompassing roughly 3,000 acres (I've read that it's supposedly the largest urban redevelopment project in the nation).

I'll try to share some things I've learned as I go through this book. A lot of it is rather extensive though. But you're making me study, and I like that. :) Also, have you read the report cited in the first post in this thread?

Krazee, I'm going to buy you glasses so you can read better. :P Read my previous post.....the annexations you talk about are the ones I have mentioned and they DO help the city (large commercial zones that bring in major tax dollars without taking up much in the way of services). I agree with this. MY POINT guys (and Spartan I have read your post) is that "annexing neighborhoods for population increase does NOTHING to foster a better quality of life". Neighborhoods contribute very little to the tax base, but use a vast amount of services.

Can someone please again give me a specific how a larger population number is going to directly create a higher quality of life? Simple question. No one has answered it. Spartan, you wrote that Greenville may not show up on list? What list? Can you name specifics? Greenville is showing up on every major companies list because of the demographics. We are on all the retail / restaurant list. On all the site selection list. No problem in that department.

Note: Noisette isn't by one devloper...correct? The land is parceled off to different devlopers right? Like the 340 acre Shipyard development. Verdae is a single developer. It's 1,100 acres is the largest single private development in the state....not largest land redevelopment.

Glad I'm making you study. 10 years and a few cities under your belt and you'll see my point. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good points, gsupstate. I agree with what you are saying.

I also want to address the earlier point made by Spartan regarding city populations. I don't think that a city population of 100,000 magically makes a city credible. It might get it into the nationwide city rankings found in each issue of Men's Health magazine, but offers little in the grand scheme of things. I don't feel that Charleston and Columbia's city populations in the 100,000's make them seem like better cities than Greenville. Perhaps it means something within South Carolina's boundaries, but I don't think Greenville is gunning to impress South Carolinians. Greenville's goals seem to be much more far-reaching than that. Besides, the average citizen has no clue about city populations, annexation laws, urban areas, MSA's, or CSA's anyway.

As gsupstate noted, Greenville has many retail, dining, and hotel options not found elsewhere in the state. If these companies relied on city population, Greenville wouldn't be on their maps. Any company worth their salt looks at much more detailed demographics like county population, urbanized area, MSA, CSA, and per capita income levels. Greenville obviously comes out well on such measures, or else we wouldn't have so many South Carolina "firsts."

City size seems to be more of a peeing contest than anything. This would be proven if the city of Greenville and Greenville county ever merged. It would put Greenville's city population at well over 400,000, and it would take posters from other cities (i.e., those who care about city populations) about 14 seconds to say, "But Greenville's population is misleading, because all they did was combine the city and county!" :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krazee, I'm going to buy you glasses so you can read better. :P Read my previous post.....the annexations you talk about are the ones I have mentioned and they DO help the city (large commercial zones that bring in major tax dollars without taking up much in the way of services). I agree with this. MY POINT guys (and Spartan I have read your post) is that "annexing neighborhoods for population increase does NOTHING to foster a better quality of life". Neighborhoods contribute very little to the tax base, but use a vast amount of services.

I think that perhaps the ball is in your court to prove that, in general, annexing neighborhoods is a fiscally unsound strategy for most cities. How has annexing more neighborhoods hurt Columbia or Charleston, or Winston-Salem or Raleigh? How have city-county consolidations (which can be viewed as "mega annexations") hurt Augusta or Jacksonville? I've shown that Winston-Salem, a city with a comparable urbanized area population to Greenville's (in 2000), has a bond rating several times higher than Greenville's. I'm sure the tax base revenue is higher as well.

Secondly, I don't think anyone has been arguing for annexation SOLELY for population increases, although that is clearly an advantage. I know that Columbia in particular has just declined to annex about 144 acres of land upon with a future subdivision is to be built on the grounds (made by the city's annexation coordinator) that it would not be economically feasible to do so.

Thirdly, you brought up the developments that the city is annexing in response to my point about very little outside of downtown having the potential to be truly urban. Out of all of the developments you mentioned, the only one that I'm aware of that does have that potential is Verdae.

Can someone please again give me a specific how a larger population number is going to directly create a higher quality of life? Simple question. No one has answered it.
Actually, I have. I mentioned that residents of the city of Charleston pay less in taxes than those not in the city for one. In some cases, municipal services are more efficient than county services.

Note: Noisette isn't by one devloper...correct? The land is parceled off to different devlopers right? Like the 340 acre Shipyard development. Verdae is a single developer. It's 1,100 acres is the largest single private development in the state....not largest land redevelopment.

I'm not sure how many developers are involved in Noisette, but you originally said that Verdae was "South Carolina's largest development to date"; you said nothing about private development, or number of developers. Noisette is broken up into sections, but it is still the state's largest development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel that Charleston and Columbia's city populations in the 100,000's make them seem like better cities than Greenville. Perhaps it means something within South Carolina's boundaries, but I don't think Greenville is gunning to impress South Carolinians. Greenville's goals seem to be much more far-reaching than that. Besides, the average citizen has no clue about city populations, annexation laws, urban areas, MSA's, or CSA's anyway.

To be fair, I don't think anyone was arguing that cities with six-figure populations are automatically "better" than those with five-figure populations. Furthermore, I don't think the cities that have aggressively pursued annexation have done so for the sake of impressing anyone. However, something is a bit unsettling to me when my own city and Mount Pleasant are ranked ahead of Greenville in population, especially when we know those figures don't accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

City size seems to be more of a peeing contest than anything. This would be proven if the city of Greenville and Greenville county ever merged. It would put Greenville's city population at well over 400,000, and it would take posters from other cities (i.e., those who care about city populations) about 14 seconds to say, "But Greenville's population is misleading, because all they did was combine the city and county!" :lol:

LOL, and I bet neither you or gsupstate would be clamoring to deconsolidate either. :) At any rate, this is similar to the situation in Florida where Jacksonville, by virtue of a city-county consolidation, is the state's largest city but Miami is clearly the big dog in Florida.

If the city and county of Greenville did consolidate, it would be misleading in the sense that it would give the impression that Greenville is 3x larger than Columbia and Charleston, not simply for having the largest municipal population since the urbanized areas of the Big Three are pretty much on par. If Charleston, Columbia, Spartanburg, Myrtle Beach, etc. did the same, that would be more representative of the size of our state's largest urban areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advantage to the City is very simply an administrative one. A City in this instance is typically one that is in an urban area, and one that is in the core of that urban area. If more territory is within this administrative structure then it is easier to manage in a uniform way. In most of SC's cities you have neighborhoods with holes in them, where one house gets city services and the next one doesn't. This situation becomes difficult for cities to work with logisticly. Another administrative advantage is from a planning perspective. You simply cannot adequately manage and plan for future growth or implement redevelopment strategies in an effective way when multiple jurisdictions split the areas that typically need it the most. Cities tend to offer stronger urban services and urban growth controls than counties. And like it or not, the suburbs are 'urban' even though most people who live there don't want to think that. This is why consolidation is the best possible move. It creates one single jurisdiciton that covers the entire area, and all services, planning, management, etc become streamlined under one government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.