Jump to content

A Case for Changing SC's Annexation Laws


monsoon

Recommended Posts

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.

It's not the ball that's in my court. It's quality of life thats in my court. I live in Greenville. I enjoy the extremely high quality of life! :thumbsup:

If you can tell me how annexation will increase that quality of llife, then great, if not....I've run the course on this subject myself and found nothing that convinces me Greenville will be better off. Yawn!

You keep bringing up bond rating. Greenville is second to the highest (AA, with highest being AAA per Standard and Poors, so not sure how Winston-Salem is "several times higher".) Greenville gets what it wants with it's bond rating.....wonderful landscaping, parks, West End Field, new corporate headquarters, greenway extensions, retail, hotels, restaurants, plans for future light rail and right of way acquisition, remodel and expanded convention center (largest in the state), Peace Center, professional theatre, symphony, ballet, Governors School, museums, the champsionship of cycling...the USPro, multiple outdoor and street festivals, high quality medical, new schools, etc, etc, etc.

Quality of life is in Greenville's court....40 love - Greenville! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

I'm sorry you're so unsettled by this. :cry:

I live in Greenville and find the place VERY settling. When you live in Greenville, you celebrate and enjoy life and don't really focus your energies on mundane numbers, that in your words "don't accurately reflect the reality of the situation". You focus on enjoying life! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the ball that's in my court. It's quality of life thats in my court. I live in Greenville. I enjoy the extremely high quality of life! :thumbsup:

If you can tell me how annexation will increase that quality of llife, then great, if not....I've run the course on this subject myself and found nothing that convinces me Greenville will be better off. Yawn!

You keep bringing up bond rating. Greenville is second to the highest (AA, with highest being AAA per Standard and Poors, so not sure how Winston-Salem is "several times higher".) Greenville gets what it wants with it's bond rating.....wonderful landscaping, parks, West End Field, new corporate headquarters, greenway extensions, retail, hotels, restaurants, plans for future light rail and right of way acquisition, remodel and expanded convention center (largest in the state), Peace Center, professional theatre, symphony, ballet, Governors School, museums, the champsionship of cycling...the USPro, multiple outdoor and street festivals, high quality medical, new schools, etc, etc, etc.

You know gsupstate, you have really opened my eyes. I mean, it was just right there, and now I see it clearly. Cities serve no purpose what-so-ever! I think the time has come to remove the charters of all cities in the state. What have they ever done for anyone anyway? Its obvious that cities do nothing for quality of life. Its great that I get to enjoy what other people pay for, while the city continues to rack up a huge debt.

Benefits of Annexation

The intereseting bit of information that you have neglected to share is that new residential areas are not always more expensive to annex. Why would any city ever annex residential areas if they continued to cost more than they are worth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know gsupstate, you have really opened my eyes. I mean, it was just right there, and now I see it clearly. Cities serve no purpose what-so-ever! I think the time has come to remove the charters of all cities in the state. What have they ever done for anyone anyway? Its obvious that cities do nothing for quality of life. Its great that I get to enjoy what other people pay for, while the city continues to rack up a huge debt.

Benefits of Annexation

The intereseting bit of information that you have neglected to share is that new residential areas are not always more expensive to annex. Why would any city ever annex residential areas if they continued to cost more than they are worth?

Well thanks for this Spartan, and this certainly would improve quality of life for current non Greenville residents, but how does it increase Greenville's quality of life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points;

I don't believe Verdae is being developed by one party. It is being MASTER developed the same as Noisette. Parcels of each are sold off to different parties for the individual projects within the overall master plan.

Daniel Island is the same way, it is merely further along in the process.

As for festivals, cycling etc. there are the same things in other cities. Columbia has hosted Olympic trials, and Charleston is known nationally for Spoleto and the Wildlife Exposition for example. The same can be said for retail establishments. Each city has ones that the others do not.

Whether a residential annexation is 'profitable' derives from the costs involved and the value of the houses. I assure you, Greenville has such areas, and would love to annex them, but can't due to the legal constraints.

Each city has it own advantages and positive qualities. A higher city population is strength (witness Charlotte) but it is not the be all and end all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points;

I don't believe Verdae is being developed by one party. It is being MASTER developed the same as Noisette. Parcels of each are sold off to different parties for the individual projects within the overall master plan.

Daniel Island is the same way, it is merely further along in the process.

As for festivals, cycling etc. there are the same things in other cities. Columbia has hosted Olympic trials, and Charleston is known nationally for Spoleto and the Wildlife Exposition for example. The same can be said for retail establishments. Each city has ones that the others do not.

Whether a residential annexation is 'profitable' derives from the costs involved and the value of the houses. I assure you, Greenville has such areas, and would love to annex them, but can't due to the legal constraints.

Each city has it own advantages and positive qualities. A higher city population is strength (witness Charlotte) but it is not the be all and end all.

With Verdae, there is one "master developer" with that master developer having owned all the land.....with Noisette is a public-private partnership....there are differences. Not that it really matters as both are excellent projects and positive steps for SC as a whole. :thumbsup: Here are links:

http://www.noisettesc.com/over_whatisnoisette.html

http://www.verdaedevelopment.com/about/index.php

On to the main subject at hand. Annexation. Charlotte has strength because of it's people, values and pro business climate. Charlotte would be just as strong if it were only 200K. Charlotte is simply a great city. Period. There many cities Charlottes size and larger that aren't doing well and probably wish they could shrink to save cost. Most are non sunbelt.

Pull up any quality of life index and most cities receiving high rankings are not the largest cities. Why do you think the terms were coined and popularity increasing for "boutique cities" and "latte towns"? Why do so many Atlantans visit Greenville for a weekend "getaway"? Why have places like Naples, FL. limited growth? Greenville has a high quality of life and pretty clear self image of who it is and who it is becoming. Population simply does not make a great city. Go to Trip Advisor and read all the glowing reports of Greenville.....talk to people who have visited.....greatness is not always found in large numbers.

My simple question is again: HOW WILL ANNEXATION DIRECTLY INCREASE GREENVILLE's QUALITY OF LIFE? If annexation is so important, this shouldn't be such a hard question to answer. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On to the main subject at hand. Annexation. Charlotte has strength because of it's people, values and pro business climate. Charlotte would be just as strong if it were only 200K. Charlotte is simply a great city. Period. There many cities Charlottes size and larger that aren't doing well and probably wish they could shrink to save cost. Most are non sunbelt.

Charlotte would not have been able to provide free land for the NFL stadium, money for the NBA stadium, multiple (4) coliseum's if that burden were carried by 200,000 people instead of 600,000. When EVERYONE carries there share of the burden (for civic venues, infrastructure) the burden is lighter. Charlotte began annexing in 1960, when it was basically another Columbia or Greensboro. Now, it is second only to Atlanta in terms of its prominence as a city in the Deep South. It entered into a new tier as a city. Was annexation the ONLY thing that lead to that, no, but it was the first of many steps, and one that helped lead to a lot of the others. The change in annexation laws pre-dates EVERYTHING ELSE that allowed Charlotte to grow and prosper, and pay for 'big city' items such as the afore-mentioned.

I don't know of any city that thinks it would benefit from being smaller in population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My simple question is again: HOW WILL ANNEXATION DIRECTLY INCREASE GREENVILLE's QUALITY OF LIFE? If annexation is so important, this shouldn't be such a hard question to answer. :)

The problem is that you are not willing to accept any analysis because the major benefits tend to be indirect. The only major direct benefit to the CITY is an increased tax-base, which in turn allows cities to do more things with that money: be it new parks, new pedestrian bridges, trees on highways, and other beautificaiton projects that add to your "quality of life" that you treasure so much (which benefits the RESIDENTS). All of these projects costs lots of money, and Greenville is probably heavily in debt right now because they have done so much so fast. Ultimately Greenville will benefit from this investment, however. And again, the benefits all boil down to dollars, and what can be done with those dollars to improve "quality of life."

You have been provided reasons how annexation helps cities and how it benefits those who are annexed in this and other posts. Cities exist to provide services, and they usually do it better and more efficiently than counties. Maybe they don't in Greenville- I don't know. I have yet to see any evidence how annexation doesn't help cities, and if it infact doesn't help, why do cities like Greenville (or Spartanburg, Columbia, Charleston, etc) want to proactively annex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep bringing up bond rating. Greenville is second to the highest (AA, with highest being AAA per Standard and Poors, so not sure how Winston-Salem is "several times higher".) Greenville gets what it wants with it's bond rating

Again, I am using the Moody's bond rating system, where Greenville is an A1 and Winston-Salem is an Aaa.

Sure Greenville "gets what it wants" with its bond rating, but the city pays higher interest than similarly-sized cities with higher municipal populations (and thus higher bond ratings), and has to rely even more on state help because 55,000 people are paying for what well over 300,000 people use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that you are not willing to accept any analysis because the major benefits tend to be indirect. The only major direct benefit to the CITY is an increased tax-base, which in turn allows cities to do more things with that money: be it new parks, new pedestrian bridges, trees on highways, and other beautificaiton projects that add to your "quality of life" that you treasure so much (which benefits the RESIDENTS). All of these projects costs lots of money, and Greenville is probably heavily in debt right now because they have done so much so fast. Ultimately Greenville will benefit from this investment, however. And again, the benefits all boil down to dollars, and what can be done with those dollars to improve "quality of life."

You have been provided reasons how annexation helps cities and how it benefits those who are annexed in this and other posts. Cities exist to provide services, and they usually do it better and more efficiently than counties. Maybe they don't in Greenville- I don't know. I have yet to see any evidence how annexation doesn't help cities, and if it infact doesn't help, why do cities like Greenville (or Spartanburg, Columbia, Charleston, etc) want to proactively annex?

But AGAIN, Greenville HAS BEEN annexing major commercial areas to bring in more dollars, but Greenville has been SELECTIVE. This has been key to it's urban core success. Greenville has one of the most landscaped urban cores of any city it's size or larger. Great parks abound. You write as if Greenville needs to annex to get QOL.....I'm saying Greenville already has excellent QOL so why annex what it doesn't need? See the diference in the two perspectives???? Greenville is annexing and it is annexing MAJOR COMMERCIAL AREAS that are excellent for the tax base. It ISN'T annexing neighborhoods that aren't as positive for the tax base. My original post that started all this had to do with "annexing for population". Most pro annexing post on here are for "population"......to look larger....to look more impressive.....to show up on list. A larger population simply does not equate to a higher quality of life. Greenville is proof that a city can be small.....annex commercial areas and have a high quality of life. This city has one of the most successful urban cores in the South, actually in the nation, and it has achieved all that without major annexation. That says alot more about a place than a population number. HUGE KUDOS to Greenville! (Ask any city along the US / Mexico border what population numbers mean to them......ask them about the "strength" and "clout" of a population number).

Here is just the surface of some reading (and I can post links in DROVES) about the current movements away from annexation and larger city governments. It's all about more localized governments.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/p...k_98_cities.pdf

Something to think about here guys.....the same thought process that brought us abandoned downtowns and the disaster known as urban renewal, also brought us annexation. Isn't it time we explored the next step in city government? Why do we keep having to live with a dated thought process of "bigger is better"? Who says successful suburbs like Greer, Mauldin, Simpsonville, Easley, etc can't coexist with the central city for a dynamic region? Expand your thinking! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I am using the Moody's bond rating system, where Greenville is an A1 and Winston-Salem is an Aaa.

Sure Greenville "gets what it wants" with its bond rating, but the city pays higher interest than similarly-sized cities with higher municipal populations (and thus higher bond ratings), and has to rely even more on state help because 55,000 people are paying for what well over 300,000 people use.

Standard & Poors is status quo. Krazee, can you list how the city Greenville has relied on the state MORE? If ANY city relies on the state, it would be Columbia.....we probably don't want to get into this discussion, because without state government offices or a state university, our little Columbia wouldn't be much. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard & Poors is status quo. Krazee, can you list how the city Greenville has relied on the state MORE? If ANY city relies on the state, it would be Columbia.....we probably don't want to get into this discussion, because without state government offices or a state university, our little Columbia wouldn't be much. :D

Standard and Poor's is "status quo"? Everything that I've seen put S&P and Moody's practically on the same level. If one agency downgrades or upgrades an entity, many times the other follows suit.

We are not talking about things that directly relate to Columbia being the state capital or home to the state's flagship university (i.e., STATE institutions). We are talking about MUNICIPAL projects, such as the convention center, parks, streetscaping projects, performing arts venues, etc. You know that's a major difference, so DO NOT digress and turn this into a pissing contest, because that's not what it is.

I think it's rather simple. A city of 55,000 places more of a burden on its citizens to support an urbanized area population of 300K+ (actually pushing more towards 400K when you count Mauldin-Simpsonville) than a city of over 100K supporting a similar urbanized area population.

Everything that we've been saying is pretty much common sense, but I know in your eyes Greenville does everything with 100% perfection, so you won't be convinced by anything anyone has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read all the post from today and its kind of funny watching this debate about annexation. gsupstate....ive lived here all my life and Greenville has changed so much since then it would probably blow your mind. I think anything Greenville does, and any kind of annexation is an improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard and Poor's is "status quo"? Everything that I've seen put S&P and Moody's practically on the same level. If one agency downgrades or upgrades an entity, many times the other follows suit.

We are not talking about things that directly relate to Columbia being the state capital or home to the state's flagship university (i.e., STATE institutions). We are talking about MUNICIPAL projects, such as the convention center, parks, streetscaping projects, performing arts venues, etc. You know that's a major difference, so DO NOT digress and turn this into a pissing contest, because that's not what it is.

I think it's rather simple. A city of 55,000 places more of a burden on its citizens to support an urbanized area population of 300K+ (actually pushing more towards 400K when you count Mauldin-Simpsonville) than a city of over 100K supporting a similar urbanized area population.

Everything that we've been saying is pretty much common sense, but I know in your eyes Greenville does everything with 100% perfection, so you won't be convinced by anything anyone has to say.

There two sides to every debate, and if you'll bother to read multiple sources and viewpoints (on the internet, at the library) annexation isn't the end all, be all.

Please backup your statement that Greenville gets extra state funds with FACTS, or don't throw out inaccurate comments.

Greenville does not do everything right in my eyes, but Krazee, if cared about the WHOLE state, you'd be thrilled that one of its major cities, Greenville, has been sucessful in spite of this so called ball and chain issue of lack of annexation.

And as for the "ball and chain burden"....I live here, you don't. I DON'T feel a burden. I'm glad you are worried about the so called "burden" for the 55K, that's very sweet of you, but hey.....we're doing great! :) This lack of annexation hasn't hampered Greenville from anything! Maybe that bothers some people....maybe they want to see a burden placed on a city. Anyway, life is pretty darn great in G-Vegas....if it weren't, myself, along with many others would pick up and move tomorrow. I'm not chained to this place.

Back to my original point. I've yet to see specific answers how annexation will increase an already great quality of life????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? If it's common sense then back it up with FACTS. How will annexation increase my quality of life?????????

Maybe it's due to the fact that some of you grew in SC and you feel slighted by the low municipal numbers. I'm not sure. When you've lived around in multiple large cities, you finally realize it just simply isn't about numbers.....it's about a thing called life. :D

As I stated much earlier....I am neither for nor against annexation. I simply wanted to see facts and for whatever reason, none were produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There two sides to every debate, and if you'll bother to read multiple sources and viewpoints (on the internet, at the library) annexation isn't the end all, be all.

I never said it was.

Greenville does not do everything right in my eyes, but Krazee, if cared about the WHOLE state, you'd be thrilled that one of its major cities, Greenville, has been sucessful in spite of this so called ball and chain issue of lack of annexation.
I have highlighted Greenville's successes here and on other threads. Annexation isn't one of the city's strong suits, and that's what we're discussing here.

As far as certain facts are concerned, I mentioned Charleston, which has lower taxes in the city than the county. Higher bond ratings equal less interest. Charleston and Columbia have higher Moody's bond ratings, meaning they pay less in interest than Greenville. You say you're a businessman, but you can't understand these financial concepts we keep mentioning? I don't get that.

As I stated much earlier....I am neither for nor against annexation. I simply wanted to see facts and for whatever reason, none were produced.

They have been (within reason, as no one here has access to detailed financial information for our cities), but you seem to be more focused on the fact that PF Chang restaurants and the presence of certain retailers means that Greenville is successful in spite of a lack of annexation.

Also, why is it that Greenville is beginning to focus more on annexation of residential areas if they didn't see some benefit?

Now Spartan's and vicupstate's comments await your replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as certain facts are concerned, I mentioned Charleston, which has lower taxes in the city than the county. Higher bond ratings equal less interest. Charleston and Columbia have higher Moody's bond ratings, meaning they pay less in interest than Greenville. You say you're a businessman, but you can't understand these financial concepts we keep mentioning? I don't get that.

:rofl: Thanks college dude for enlightening me on the business world. In Standard & Poors the rating is AA. You've obviously missed the point that the excellent bond rating Gville has (AA) hasn't slowed it down. AA vs AAA means very little. Tell me Greenville has a BB rating and then I'll listen....that would MEAN something. Such as it is....MOOT point.

You still haven't been able to answer my question with cold, hard facts / figures / links! :lol:

Is this how they teach debate in college now? Debate without facts? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I currently live in Charleston, and have done so for almost two years now. The city of Charleston has a population of over twice that found in the city of Greenville, and in my opinion the quality of life here is not close to that found in Greenville. Real estate in Charleston is significantly higher (many people can't even afford to live on the peninsula), sales tax is much higher (7.5% in some instances), and development is often stifled due to "historic preservation." Only a few hours of rain often flood heavily-traveled streets in downtown, to the point that cars stall and people must find alternate ways to cross. Many key roads downtown are poorly maintained, with large potholes and narrow lanes. Streetscaping seems scant, except for a few places. Someone above mentioned city taxes going toward convention centers, coliseums, etc. In Charleston, those things are not even located in the city for city residents to enjoy, but in North Charleston 10 minutes away from the urban core. Perhaps the lack of such amenities in the city, plus the higher sales tax on restaurants and hotels, contribute to the supposedly lower taxes paid by city residents.

For me, this isn't a fair trade just to live somewhere with rich history, some charm, good restaurants, and access to the beach. Now is a good time for me to say that Charleston is a fine city and is receiving its fair share of new residents and developments. I enjoy living here while being a student, but in terms of quality of life I do not feel it is optimal. I raise these important quality of life issues not to bash Charleston, but because they seem to have little to do with city population. And I think that is precisely gsupstate's point.

Edited by Greenville
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Most of the things you list about (downtown) Charleston are related to the city's age and geographical location more than anything.

In regards to certain facilities being located in North Charleston as opposed to Charleston, you do have a point.

Annexation isn't the end-all be-all, and I don't think anyone has claimed such (I surely didn't). There are several factors that account for a city's state of being, and annexation is only one of them. I think annexation, for our purposes, relates more to function and efficiency than it does the ubiquitous "quality of life" issue. However, function and efficiency, IMO, is just as important as quality of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gsupstate, the Harvard read was a good one. Us Poli Sci students are the weirdest people ever though, and our papers are designed to do one of two things: beat the hell out of the opposition continuously, or only use facts that seem to back us up. Trust me, I do it on a weekly basis (you throw in a few points from the opposition and just beat them into the ground).

If you want though gsupstate, not even being condescending, I'd like the links to some of your other stuff for this upcoming semester. Seriously, just pm me.

(Edit: Moderator removed the material that would seriously turn this discussion sour. This thread will NOT turn into a pissing contest.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But AGAIN, Greenville HAS BEEN annexing major commercial areas to bring in more dollars, but Greenville has been SELECTIVE. This has been key to it's urban core success. Greenville has one of the most landscaped urban cores of any city it's size or larger. Great parks abound. You write as if Greenville needs to annex to get QOL.....I'm saying Greenville already has excellent QOL so why annex what it doesn't need? See the diference in the two perspectives???? Greenville is annexing and it is annexing MAJOR COMMERCIAL AREAS that are excellent for the tax base. It ISN'T annexing neighborhoods that aren't as positive for the tax base. My original post that started all this had to do with "annexing for population". Most pro annexing post on here are for "population"......to look larger....to look more impressive.....to show up on list. A larger population simply does not equate to a higher quality of life. Greenville is proof that a city can be small.....annex commercial areas and have a high quality of life. This city has one of the most successful urban cores in the South, actually in the nation, and it has achieved all that without major annexation. That says alot more about a place than a population number. HUGE KUDOS to Greenville! (Ask any city along the US / Mexico border what population numbers mean to them......ask them about the "strength" and "clout" of a population number).

Here is just the surface of some reading (and I can post links in DROVES) about the current movements away from annexation and larger city governments. It's all about more localized governments.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/p...k_98_cities.pdf

Something to think about here guys.....the same thought process that brought us abandoned downtowns and the disaster known as urban renewal, also brought us annexation. Isn't it time we explored the next step in city government? Why do we keep having to live with a dated thought process of "bigger is better"? Who says successful suburbs like Greer, Mauldin, Simpsonville, Easley, etc can't coexist with the central city for a dynamic region? Expand your thinking! :D

You didn't answer my question, and you are inserting assumptions about comments that were never made. What you have done in this debate is make one point. Greenville has a great quality of life.

That article makes a lot of great points as well, but if you read it carefully you will see that it has an issue that doesn't work. It discusses major metropoliain areas such New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boston etc... none of which can really compare to anything that South Carolina has to offer. Our primary cities are the size of some of the suburbs of these major cities in terms of population. The author also admits bias because he is from a successful suburb of Boston (with a population identical to Greenville, no less).

What that article points out is that local government works best when its small (aka local). What is more local that CITY government!? It appears from my perspective to be an issue with economy of scale. Cities work just fine up until some size, and then it becomes too cumbersome to get things done effeciently. I think that there is no City in SC that is in danger of approaching that point in the foreseeable future.

Standard & Poors is status quo. Krazee, can you list how the city Greenville has relied on the state MORE? If ANY city relies on the state, it would be Columbia.....we probably don't want to get into this discussion, because without state government offices or a state university, our little Columbia wouldn't be much. :D

This is good. Lets move the topic off of Greenville for a moment. Lets look at Columbia and Spartanburg. These cities have one key thing in common that is relevant in this discussion: government owned land. This classification of land, as we know, is not taxable. They both have numerous city, county, federal and institutionally owned land. On top of that Columbia has State government, and USC which has a huge presence.

In Spartanburg, the government owned land takes up something like 1/5 of all land in the city (which is a lot of land). The City is struggling financially to keep up in part due to this situation (and other factors). It is only where it is today because of its lack of annexation in the past. Spartanburg needs to annex in order to solidify its finances so it can continue improving quality of life. But according to gsupstate that doesn't actually improve qualiy of life. It improves finances.

I don't know about Columbia's details, but I can only assume it is in a somewhat similar situation.

gsupstate, the Harvard read was a good one. Us Poli Sci students are the weirdest people ever though, and our papers are designed to do one of two things: beat the hell out of the opposition continuously, or only use facts that seem to back us up. Trust me, I do it on a weekly basis (you throw in a few points from the opposition and just beat them into the ground).

One thing I know about us poli-sci people is that its a good deal of "BS" (thats the technical term). gsupstate hasn't made any points to counter arguements that annexation benefits cities in SC. He used a paper from Harvard and the repetitive statement that 'greenville has a great quality of life.' If this discussion was centered around Greenville's ability to make the best of its small populaiton, then there would be nothing to debate. He is also countering facts with his opinions. Its easy to avoid the issue and make it seem as though you aren't when you are a poli-sci person. I have stated many reasons as to how it can benefit QOL, and it all comes down to numbers (which other people have pointed out as well) QOL is not achievable without numbers (specifically dollar numbers). I want to see a solid arguement as to how it doesn't help cities to annex. How does it NOT help quality of life?

Quality of life is a relative and subjective issue at its root. I personally think that Columbia has an outstanding quality of life- the best in the state. All of our large cities have a good quality of life.

You won't accept financial reasons, planning reasons, service reasons, and the like, so I think you are simply prodding this discussion along, as you have offered no substantial facts to prove your point at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gsupstate hasn't made any points to counter arguements that annexation benefits cities in SC. He used a paper from Harvard and the repetitive statement that 'greenville has a great quality of life.'

And none of you have yet to lay out cold, hard facts (you can bullet point them 1 to 10 if you like) how annexation for a POPULATION INCREASE definitely benefits the city. Note: I did agree that annexation of high dollar commercial areas benefits the city. Hello.....anybody home? I've ask the question over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't accept financial reasons, planning reasons, service reasons, and the like, so I think you are simply prodding this discussion along, as you have offered no substantial facts to prove your point at all.

You are right. I have no substantial facts of how POPULATION NUMBERS annexation will benefit the city. That is the reason I originally ask the question. Obviously you guys don't have the facts either because the question has yet to be answered with SPECIFIC, COLD, HARD, FACTS and links. Just a lot of opinions and throwing the question back at me. I would seriously like to know and SEE LINKS TO FACTS. If you have them, please bullet point them. My opinions can always be swayed....but it takes a good, logical argument backed up by FACTS. Again, I've seen no FACTS.

Spartan, I live the fact that Greenville has exceptional quality of life. The burden of proof of facts is on you to explain to me how POPULATION ANNEXATION will improve my quality of life. Again, that has been the million dollar question. Get it? If you show the facts, then great, I'll probably agree......if you can't provide facts, then great, I still enjoy a high quality of life. Win/win. :D No skin off my back.

I'll get out of this discussion now. I simply ask a simple question that I thought people could easily answer seeing as how everyone was pushing population annexation. Unfortunately, it never got answered with facts to back it up. There were some good points made, yes, but no facts. From 55K Greenville, ciao! :D

Edited by gsupstate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts have been extensively given through the course of this discussion, as well as in the links that were given. At any rate, here are more.

Some pertinent excerpts from an article in the Greenville News about annexation along Pleasanburg Drive:

Officials say this is not a blatant attempt to annex the land. It's more of a wink and nudge effort to get people to come into the city. More than 14,000 people live in the one-mile targeted area. That's 14,000 people who could be added to the tax roles...

If all the land in this one-mile zone were annexed, eventually it would unite neighborhoods such as Southernside and Brutontown. It would add the Brandon Mill community, one-time home of baseball legend "Shoeless" Joe Jackson...

"We are supporting a disproportionate base of cultural and support system not just for county but for the Upstate," [city economic development director Nancy]Whitworth said. "The burden of providing is left with the taxpayers of the City of Greenville."

Here is another from 2002 highlighting benefits of the city's annexation plan. Although this plan is more geared towards annexation of commercial areas, it still mentions benefits for annexation of residential areas:

"Similar policies are in place in other South Carolina municipalities such as Columbia and Conway," [city manager Randy Oliver]added. "There are definite benefits to annexation. Water rates are one-third lower in the city. Plus you have the added benefit of enhanced service for police and fire protection, garbage service, street sweeping and other services typical to cities..."

"We think it's a reasonable requirement," [Howard] Duvall [of the Municipal Association of South Carolina] said of annexation. "Cities are paying for infrastructure of water and sewer lines out in the suburbs without taxes.

"Council will not lose any ground since they still are residents of the county. The county should applaud Greenville because it will eliminate some of the services they need to supply."

He said Greenville city's population has not changed much, and that by adding residents to the tax base, the city could be eligible for more federal funds.

Donna Smith, director of economic development for Lexington, said annexing has helped curb sprawl...

City Councilwoman Michelle Shain said the idea of annexation is not new, and that other communities have successfully exercised that tool as a means of promoting economic development.

"It will be strong for the city taxpayer," Shain said. "We're looking at ways to generate more business in the city. We can't step back and not take action."

After all this information, i.e. facts (including the links), I'm not sure what more you could possibly want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ A sincere thanks Krazee. Those are factual statements.

What I can surmise from above is that for me, living in the city, population will increase my QOL slightly by:

1. Lower water bills

2. Possible lower property taxes.

3. The third item, more commercial business for a larger tax base, I've already previously agreed with.

I would like to see numbers. As a resident living the city, if we annex say 100 people, how many cents or dollars does my water bill or property taxes drop? Where would a city provide these numbers?

Overall, annexation seems to do more for those being annexed into the city than those living in the city. Since I live here, that's why I've played devils advocate. What will it do for me?

As for curbing sprawl, this simply seems to be a myth. Sprawl in the US is at an all time high and cities have been annexing for years. The way I see it, say 100 people live just outside the city limits....the city annexes them......another 100 build on the edge of the new municipal boundary.....the city then annexes them.....another 100 build on the edge of yet another new boundary.......an endless cycle. Not sure there is really a cure (or even help) for sprawl unless Americans change their fundamental way of thinking or larger government entities (states or counties) enact ULTRA strict land usage laws.

Thanks again Krazee. At the end of the day, if annexation happens then great, but if not that's OK. There simply isn't enough reason there for me personally to jump on the annexation bandwagon. Greenville is doing things right now and managing it's growth and density infill wisely.

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.