Jump to content

Ballentine Trying To Become A Town


sonofaque86

Recommended Posts

My parents live in the LR area and I grew up there. I can tell you that people in the area would be adamantly against Richco joining up with Colatown, especially the people that have lived there forever. Matter of fact, I've heard there's a move afoot to oppose such a measure. Don't know many details though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
My parents live in the LR area and I grew up there. I can tell you that people in the area would be adamantly against Richco joining up with Colatown, especially the people that have lived there forever. Matter of fact, I've heard there's a move afoot to oppose such a measure. Don't know many details though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big thing for them is that a lot of them moved out there so that nobody could tell them what to do, and they could enjoy a lot of distance between them and their neighbors. That was back in the 30's-70s.

Now, the sentiment is they aren't pleased with Richco, but are aghast at the actions of Colatown in various areas. Basically, they'll end up with higher tax bills and the same services as they have now.

You have to remember that there are a lot of people out in the country who don't want to be footing the bill for things they'd never use (like the bus system) or disagree with (homelss shelters--there's a huge 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps sentiment over there).

And, yeah, they'll get a say in who's elected, but they are a very small minority compared to Colatown. They believe, and I think they are right, that 'city issues' will get the most emphasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in general want the success of a center city so long as they don't have to live there and contribute to it via taxes or whatever. There is still strong a mentality with roots in the white-flight era that says "don't live in the central city." And lets not forget that the oldest parts of Cayce and West Columbia are no more suburban than any of Columbia's other 1st ring neighborhoods outside of the original grid. They just happen to be in Lexington County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You mean like when Cayce annexed land in a flood plain? "

Yep. That's the kind of moronic move I've grown to accept from Richco, but it was reversed here. Up until that stunt, I'd been OK with Cayce's elected officialsand their decisions, and for the most part, by Lexco's.

Rest assured that the annexation did not go over well with the vast majority of Cayce residents. Expect a huge change in city council next election cycle.

"In my opinion, it's just as much about people not wanting to pay for the services provided by the city that they actually enjoy as it is about paying for services they don't use."

Not so. But we've tilled this ground before, so I'm not going over it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You can't deny that that's true for at least some people who are against living in the city or being annexed. "

I can honestly say that I don't know anyone like that. I'm sure that somewhere there is someone, but I don't know them. I'd have to say that they would be a very small minority based on what I've encountered growing up there, and visiting quite frequently in my old haunts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course people aren't going to come out and say it, but that's a big issue behind a lot of the anti-annexation sentiment. All people see are their taxes rising and they panic--not even aware that the bill for services legitimately used are now due. Check out this article from the Charleston Business Journal, specifically this excerpt:

In many cases, municipalities circle the unincorporated land like a doughnut. Mount Pleasant, for example, has hundreds of doughnut holes, some the size of just one quarter-acre, others 20 acres, said Town Administrator Mac Burdette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if we're talking about a city/county consolidation, which I believe Waccamatt alluded to, this would actually eliminate a layer of government. Otherwise, I'm really not in favor of cities stretching themselves thin by annexing to the hinterlands and then being unable to provide quality services to those now within the municipal boundaries. It just really depends on how far "waaaaaaay out" really is, how built up those areas are, and their relationship to the central city. In some cases, a decent case for annexation can be made, and in some, the case isn't as strong. There has to be a way to consider the individual property owners and respect their rights while, at the same time, taking into account the needs of the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fairly new, transplanted resident to NE Richland, so perhaps my perspective is skewed. We are on Columbia City water, so that skews my view as well.

I think most of us agree that the annexation laws of this state are problematic. On the one hand, there is a very big practical disconnect between how municipal boundaries are allowed to form and the provision of municipal services like water, police, and fire. Donut holes and shoestring annexations over time make the provision of such services needlessly complex, and is fair to no one. On the other hand, there is a lot of mistrust of municipal officials, some of it fair (there's a tendency to chase tax revenue regardless of the annexation/services consequences), some of it not (they're not all out to shake you down), and on top of a strong property rights undercurrent (not a bad thing, but need to be realistic and fair), the end result is a dysfunctional annexation environment.

I think one option is to make sure that municipal services and municipal boundaries reasonably, practically, and fairly go together. This does not mean everyone on a municipal water system should be within municipal boundaries (although that option should be explored), but at the very least something needs to be done about the donut holes/shoestrings/etc. issue. I for the life of me cannot fathom how those tentacles of Columbia jutting out from Fort Jackson into a handful of homes in the Woodcreek Farms neighborhood in NE Richland can make any sense when you think about dispatching a city policeman there. Even with all the GPS technology in the world, I would think city boundaries should be intuitive enough to such service providers that we would not allow such bizarre shapes.

The other thing that really bothers me is that these cities (Columbia and Cayce and Irmo are all guilty in this) are cherry-picking high-tax revenue areas like Wal-Mart SuperCenters and office parks (like the U. of Phoenix one near I-77/Farrow). If annexation laws were reformed, I think much of this would stop.

On top of this we have all these special-purpose districts that add more layers and more boards and more hoops to jump through. And these districts and the cities and counties with overlapping departments (like planning) don't always talk to, communicate with, or even "like" each other. More mistrust and more disconnects and more mistakes.

Patchwork services can be very dangerous - look at the water situation in Hilton Head with saltwater intrusion into the aquifer. While it may not be the #1 culprit, but allowing some homeowners to use wells while their neighbors used the municipal water system didn't help.

Ok, so after all that disorganized stream-of-thought, I see a few options to sort through this mess:

(1) Better match annexation with services by eliminating donut holes and shoestrings. The challenge here is respecting property rights. I'm not sure how other states do it, but I would think we could manage something practical while still protecting property rights. The strongest annexation-services connection I know of is Columbus, Ohio, which has allowed to them healthily grow into suburban areas and consistently provide services. Basic rule is, "you want our water, we get to annex you", with a few exceptions. I think midwestern states with their flat topography, straight-line surveying and development, and newer, post-independence histories have enabled them to have more rational annexation regimes.

(2) Consolidate overlapping functions, especially special-purpose districts like recreation districts, regional sewer districts, etc. One challenge here is shaking folks out of their fiefdoms. Lots of egos like to use these overlapping, multiple commissions as a ladder for their political ambitions. This would take leadership, something I'm not really optimistic on.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg is the nearest best example of this (they've done much of (1) and (2)), but they have had very, very good, progressive urban leadership for decades. This still leaves the door open for satellite municipalities to maintain their identities and some of their services. Irmo, for example, could remain like Huntersville, north of Charlotte, does.

(3) City-County mergers (basically short-cuts the first two options). This would REALLY take leadership but would more quickly cut the fat and distortions out of services and governance. You could still leave room for "legacy" satellite towns like Blythewood, etc. that have certain items like water coming from other sources (they get theirs from Winnsboro). This is similar to what Lousville-Jefferson County, KY has done, I believe. Athens-Clarke County, GA is another, closer example of this.

(4) "The Virginia Plan" - basically do a one-shot rationalization of city boundaries, and then forever isolate and separate them from their respective counties as independent cities. Certain towns like Irmo & Blythewood could remain with limited services. This is basically what Virginia is like - cities by definition are separate and independent from counties and can never annex (at least not without General Assembly approval). Still allows room for city-county mergers, I suppose (as has been done in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area). I don't like this idea because it feels like "giving up", is the least practical politically, and is a potential long term threat to the health of cities (see St. Louis and Baltimore, which shortsidedly separated themselves from their then-"country neighbors" decades ago). But in Virginia it seems to have more or less worked (again, with the allowance of city-county mergers) as they do not have a long history of large industrial cities that are hemmed in like Cleveland or Detroit. What I think happens then is that the counties are forced to really think about municipal services and almost act like cities. It isn't always pretty, but I would rather have a large city-like county-wide governance (like Fairfax near DC) with no "real" cities, than a patchwork of cities and counties that can't coordinate, communicate, or get along.

Any other, more well-thought-out or cohesive ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I'll kind of summarize (this is shorter, I promise) is that the recent shenanigans of municipalities in the Midlands aren't exactly making me running to be annexed into a city.

(1) Gaston's financial problems (possibly criminal) leading to closing their police department - are they going to become a paper town - can the state even de-charter them if it came to that? Who'd want to be annexed into that? The donut hole option in this scenario makes more (self-interested) sense.

(2) Irmo's shoestring annexation of the new Wal-Mart SuperCenter. They basically did to the Ballentine area what Columbia did to them with Columbiana Mall - I don't know if Irmoans (Irmoites? Irmese?) can legitimately complain about the Columbiana thing anymore.

(3) Columbia's financial problems (criminality, I don't know, but lots of irregularities) - they are now working with a small army of CPAs to sort out their mess. As much as I root for the city as the hub of our region, this hurts the most and really makes me wary of joining the city. Even though I'm on city water, I'd rather join closer Blythewood if this is what I have to expect.

I take waccamatt's point about the fairness of annexation and municipal services being a major issue. Also that it is in, in theory, cheaper to be part of a city and partake in those services. But these are abstract arguments in the face of poor governance stories coming out of our nearby municipalities.

Anyways, it all comes back to building trust (or breaking mistrust) and leadership (crickets at this point). Only then can we talk about strengthening our cities and towns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C2M, good analyses and breakdowns. As far as solutions are concerned, I'd say that #2 would be the most feasible here in SC (only because it's more likely--the others are long shots).

As far as the reasons for not opting for annexation, particularly when it comes to city leadership, you'll always have those who would prefer to be outside the city--no matter the quality of the leadership. Take Joe Riley in Charleston for example, highly regarded among his fellow mayors across the country. There are people in area surrounding Charleston that feel that Riley wants to get people "under his thumb," which is why the city of Charleston has been annexing like crazy lately.

I understand the anti-city sentiment, which is in no way unique to SC--it exists throughout the South. So why is it that we came to be the Southern state with the most stringent annexation laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the reasons for not opting for annexation, particularly when it comes to city leadership, you'll always have those who would prefer to be outside the city--no matter the quality of the leadership. Take Joe Riley in Charleston for example, highly regarded among his fellow mayors across the country. There are people in area surrounding Charleston that feel that Riley wants to get people "under his thumb," which is why the city of Charleston has been annexing like crazy lately.

I understand the anti-city sentiment, which is in no way unique to SC--it exists throughout the South. So why is it that we came to be the Southern state with the most stringent annexation laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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.