Greenville Annexations

[vicupstate]

Old Sulphur Springs Rd. 1.1 acres

 

Old Sulphur Springs Rd. annexation

[ausrutherford]

Wonder if the medical complex is ready to expand...

[vicupstate]

.30 Acre parcel on Ridge St. being annexed for a SFH. The same owner owns three other adjoining properties that are contiguous to this parcel.

 

10 Woodlawn Ave. (.17 acre), 49 Woodside Ave. (.16 acre), 51 Woodside Ave. (.20 acre), and 55 Woodside Ave. (.33 acre) are being bought by the city for affordable housing. All are outside the city but contiguous, so I would expect they will be annexed after the closing.  

[vicupstate]

1009 Woodruff Rd. 1.94 acres

1009 Woodruff Rd.

2802 E. North St. 1.94 acres + 1.1 acres ROW

2802 E. North St,   

[distortedlogic]

Better slow this down and get a handle on it quick, 5 acres at one time is outrageous. We keep this up and we might reach a city limit size of 28 square miles. There'll be no unannexed land left. Where are our planners and conservationists? This sort of runaway incorporation is unacceptable!

[vicupstate]

Actually we are almost 29 miles now.  Your point is well taken though. I wish the city would get more aggressive too. The city needs to pursue an annexation election in Chanticleer. The politics of taking that out of the PSD might be the issue, but nothing ventured nothing gained. 

[ausrutherford]

11 hours ago, vicupstate said:

Actually we are almost 29 miles now.  Your point is well taken though. I wish the city would get more aggressive too. The city needs to pursue an annexation election in Chanticleer. The politics of taking that out of the PSD might be the issue, but nothing ventured nothing gained. 

City looked into that years ago and didn't proceed because they didn't want to add another trash truck crew....

I should mention, upon the most recent numbers I have seen, a single-family residence must be assessed at over $800,000 to be cash-positive for municipalities to serve them. 

[vicupstate]

33 minutes ago, ausrutherford said:

City looked into that years ago and didn't proceed because they didn't want to add another trash truck crew....

I should mention, upon the most recent numbers I have seen, a single-family residence must be assessed at over $800,000 to be cash-positive for municipalities to serve them. 

Wow. That figure is really hard to believe. That would mean almost no residential annexation would be worth doing, and a fair number of commercial ones also. 

About 20 years ago I heard the figure was $250k.  Even with inflation it should have changed that dramatically. 

If the number is that high, how can other cities do it without ruining their finances? Is there something unique for Greenville?

 

[GvilleSC]

17 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

Wow. That figure is really hard to believe. That would mean almost no residential annexation would be worth doing, and a fair number of commercial ones also. 

About 20 years ago I heard the figure was $250k.  Even with inflation it should have changed that dramatically. 

If the number is that high, how can other cities do it without ruining their finances? Is there something unique for Greenville?

 

That is indeed an interesting figure without any context. I would think that density would be a factor. Chanticleer's large lots versus something like Verdae style density. I would think assessed value per acre would be a more useful number than a raw price per house. 

A side question: The city doesn't provide trash service to commercial properties does it? I would think commercial viability is different due to the scope of services provided by the city? And how that compares... idk?

[ausrutherford]

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

Wow. That figure is really hard to believe. That would mean almost no residential annexation would be worth doing, and a fair number of commercial ones also. 

About 20 years ago I heard the figure was $250k.  Even with inflation it should have changed that dramatically. 

If the number is that high, how can other cities do it without ruining their finances? Is there something unique for Greenville?

 

I slightly mis-typed...its as high as over $800,000. Cant remember where I read it of hand. 

Commercial is taxed at a higher rate, plus they take up less services than residential. 

Greenville is potentially even worse for they can't get all the taxes they should due to previous agreements with several Fire Districts that still receive a portion of the taxes, even though City Fire now services the annexed parcels. 

In fact, if I remember right, the Fire District in that area is one of the worse agreements. I think it expires in 2025 though. 

[vicupstate]

2.23 Acres on Hartsell, Young and Bayou Streets.

Annexation on Hartsell, Young, Bayou streets

.79 acres on 57 Creekside Park Dr.

57 Creekside Park Drive

4.95 acres on Woodruff Rd.

549 Woodruff Rd.

6.78 acres on Halton Rd.

105 Halton Village Circle 

[ausrutherford]

How have the new apartments on Laurens across from BMW not been annexed yet?!

[apaladin]

2 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

How have the new apartments on Laurens across from BMW not been annexed yet?!

I'm sure Mauldin will if they haven't already.

 

[vicupstate]

3 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

How have the new apartments on Laurens across from BMW not been annexed yet?!

Both the Passco Vinings and Innovation complexes are already inside the city. There looks to be something being built on the Hollingsworth plant propert, is that what you are referring to? If so, it is surrounded by Greenville. Mauldin couldn't take it. They might be waiting for occupancy before annexing.

[ausrutherford]

On 8/31/2017 at 10:00 PM, vicupstate said:

Both the Passco Vinings and Innovation complexes are already inside the city. There looks to be something being built on the Hollingsworth plant propert, is that what you are referring to? If so, it is surrounded by Greenville. Mauldin couldn't take it. They might be waiting for occupancy before annexing.

Thats the one.

Well, their water tap with Greenville Water should have prompted annexation. Don't like how they are planning a gated community which wouldn't have been allowed in the City. 

[vicupstate]

12 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Thats the one.

Well, their water tap with Greenville Water should have prompted annexation. Don't like how they are planning a gated community which wouldn't have been allowed in the City. 

That is probably why it hasn't happened. Build it gated and then annex it. 

[ausrutherford]

There is possible good news on the horizon. It appears a new annexation bill will before the assembly this coming session regarding our old friend, the donut holes!

I have heard that a municipality, if passed, would be able to annex AT WILL 25 acres or less if it meets certain criteria in terms of how long it has been encircled and how much of it is encircled. Those two aspects will be hammered out. 

[vicupstate]

^^ I would love to see it pass but it would not seem realistic, IMO. 

[Exile]

18 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

There is possible good news on the horizon. It appears a new annexation bill will before the assembly this coming session regarding our old friend, the donut holes!

I have heard that a municipality, if passed, would be able to annex AT WILL 25 acres or less if it meets certain criteria in terms of how long it has been encircled and how much of it is encircled. Those two aspects will be hammered out. 

Is it a good thing to pass a law that would remove any recourse small, individual property owners and small businesses have against annexation, while exempting large property owners (i.e., larger businesses and wealthier people) from the same? Is annexation so important that we're willing to run roughshod over private property owners' wishes? 

I admit that I'm not up on the technicalities of this issue: I imagine that, at least in some circumstances, unincorporated land could be getting a sweetheart deal at the expense of the municipality. If that's the case, then the issue is not encirclement, but financial fairness. Encirclement to me seems like an incredibly poor reason for such a move. What about San Marino? Should Italy absorb it because it encircles it? Should Lesotho go out of existence as a separate state because South Africa encircles it? And if a tract of land is desirable enough, expect municipalities to embark on encirclement (or better, entrapment) strategies, if they're not already doing that.

If there's financial inequity, then right the financial wrong and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe the property owner will then petition for annexation. Maybe he won't. But to authorize unilateral at-will annexation seems to me to be a serious invasion of property rights. I've known too many people who've been severely adversely affected financially by annexation.

I'd enjoy reading a comprehensive explanation of why liberal annexation laws are a good thing.

[ausrutherford]

2 hours ago, Exile said:

Is it a good thing to pass a law that would remove any recourse small, individual property owners and small businesses have against annexation, while exempting large property owners (i.e., larger businesses and wealthier people) from the same? Is annexation so important that we're willing to run roughshod over private property owners' wishes? 

I admit that I'm not up on the technicalities of this issue: I imagine that, at least in some circumstances, unincorporated land could be getting a sweetheart deal at the expense of the municipality. If that's the case, then the issue is not encirclement, but financial fairness. Encirclement to me seems like an incredibly poor reason for such a move. What about San Marino? Should Italy absorb it because it encircles it? Should Lesotho go out of existence as a separate state because South Africa encircles it? And if a tract of land is desirable enough, expect municipalities to embark on encirclement (or better, entrapment) strategies, if they're not already doing that.

If there's financial inequity, then right the financial wrong and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe the property owner will then petition for annexation. Maybe he won't. But to authorize unilateral at-will annexation seems to me to be a serious invasion of property rights. I've known too many people who've been severely adversely affected financially by annexation.

I'd enjoy reading a comprehensive explanation of why liberal annexation laws are a good thing.

Donut holes are bad for two reasons from the side of the municipality.

1. Planning: Not having all land within the boundaries of a municipality leads to uneven development. This includes remarkably includes design. Many municipalities have more strict standards for the design of projects from the amount of vegetation that must be planted, to sidewalks installed, to the actual design of the building through a Design Review Board. Imagine having two parcels developed (one in county and one in the city) right next to each other, but each looked remarkably different. One with great design and care, and one with steel construction and corporate design.

This also goes with zoning. The donut hole might be visioned by the city to be of a different zoning use than what the County has...yet the parcel is encircled by the city. This creates unevenness and confusion.

2. Services. Imagine having a road of houses and alternating houses that are in the city and in the county. Now imagine being the city or the county and having to service those properties. It would be confusing for 911 or Fire services as to which department (City or County) gets the call to a house in the case of an emergency. It is also confusing for Public services of especially the City as to which properties they serve. You could have a storm and knocks down limbs. Two houses want to put out the limbs for pickup. Well one is in the County and one is in the City. The City's Public Services picks up both thinking that both are in the City. The City just lost money by servicing a property that does not pay taxes to it.

3. Code Enforcement. Cities tend to have more strict codes and enforce their codes more than counties enforce theirs. You could have one well kept property in the City and one unkept property in the County. This hurts property values and creates unsightly views.

In short, its just smart to have cohesiveness between development that are all built under one zoning code and under one law.

Your examples of San Marino and Lesotho are apples to oranges compared to those problem. Sam Marino is a totally different nation than Italy. Different laws and different rulers. 

A County and a Municipality, however, are both creatures of the State in which they are in. That means they are still under the umbrella of laws the State has. Also, unless you live Virginia, a municipality is still within the County(s). This means if you live in the City of Greenville, you still live in Greenville County and you vote for politicians in both.

[vicupstate]

In 1940 Columbia and Charlotte were similar in size.  Now Charlotte proper is 7 times larger. 

[Exile]

12 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Donut holes are bad for two reasons from the side of the municipality.

1. Planning: Not having all land within the boundaries of a municipality leads to uneven development. This includes remarkably includes design. Many municipalities have more strict standards for the design of projects from the amount of vegetation that must be planted, to sidewalks installed, to the actual design of the building through a Design Review Board. Imagine having two parcels developed (one in county and one in the city) right next to each other, but each looked remarkably different. One with great design and care, and one with steel construction and corporate design.

This also goes with zoning. The donut hole might be visioned by the city to be of a different zoning use than what the County has...yet the parcel is encircled by the city. This creates unevenness and confusion.

2. Services. Imagine having a road of houses and alternating houses that are in the city and in the county. Now imagine being the city or the county and having to service those properties. It would be confusing for 911 or Fire services as to which department (City or County) gets the call to a house in the case of an emergency. It is also confusing for Public services of especially the City as to which properties they serve. You could have a storm and knocks down limbs. Two houses want to put out the limbs for pickup. Well one is in the County and one is in the City. The City's Public Services picks up both thinking that both are in the City. The City just lost money by servicing a property that does not pay taxes to it.

3. Code Enforcement. Cities tend to have more strict codes and enforce their codes more than counties enforce theirs. You could have one well kept property in the City and one unkept property in the County. This hurts property values and creates unsightly views.

In short, its just smart to have cohesiveness between development that are all built under one zoning code and under one law.

Your examples of San Marino and Lesotho are apples to oranges compared to those problem. Sam Marino is a totally different nation than Italy. Different laws and different rulers. 

A County and a Municipality, however, are both creatures of the State in which they are in. That means they are still under the umbrella of laws the State has. Also, unless you live Virginia, a municipality is still within the County(s). This means if you live in the City of Greenville, you still live in Greenville County and you vote for politicians in both.

Thanks for the reply. Just a few observations, and then I'll go back in lurk mode. I will, however, pay close attention to whatever conversation might ensue, because I do want to better understand all perspectives on this.

1) Being in a municipality is no guarantee that the quality of a parcel or of its maintenance will be up to whatever (necessarily arbitrary) standard the municipality sets. I know this by repeated experience with neighbors in several different cities. But more generally, your description indicates that the real issue is differences between city and county. So the property owner (small property owner, in this case) gets caught between city and county and, according to this proposed law, must be absorbed by the city if the city so dictates. He or she is made to pay (perpetually) for the fact that city and county can't get on the same page today, even if later they do (get on the same page).

2) This is of course anecdotal, but I don't know that I've ever heard of such problems along county borders or along state borders (though I'm sure they exist). In any case there don't seem to be analogous attempts to assert jurisdiction along county/state borders. This is most likely a universal problem of borders: why should city borders be any different? And if I live in the county and put my limbs out in front of my house, why should I have to pay if the city mistakenly removes them? They need to be more diligent in identifying proper borders; and recognize the border issue and work with adjacent governmental authorities. Nobody cuts private businesses any breaks for mistakes: they learn from it and improve their service; or they don't and they suffer and/or go out of business. If Joe Schmoe Pizza has a 30-minute delivery guarantee and goes to my neighbor's house first and shows up at my house 5 minutes late, I'm getting a free pizza (or, I suppose, no pizza at all; but what I'm not doing is paying). But the city because of its mistakes just absorbs you and increases your taxes to pay for it, and you have no recourse? Where's the justice in that?

3) Again, why does this have to become my problem? It's a problem of city and county not being on the same page. But the city makes it my problem and makes me pay for their mutual inability or unwillingness to work with, rivalry with, or just plain dislike for the  county government?

As for my examples of San Marino and Lesotho, they are not apples and oranges. I was only addressing the issue of encirclement as a rationale, which I find unconvincing. Purely on the basis of encirclement, they are differences of degree, not of kind. I understand the complicating governmental issues of an actual absorption.

But beyond all this, it's clear that cities primarily annex to increase their tax bases, not primarily for aesthetics. If "no taxation without representation" means anything, unilateral absorption, without recourse, under a taxing authority seems like a repudiation of that principle to me.

[vicupstate]

2.44 acres on Lowdes Hill Rd.

Lowdes Hill Rd.

[vicupstate]

9.8 acres at 2300 E. North St. An apartment complex. 

2300 E. North St.

[vicupstate]

Car Max getting annexed into the city 13.7 acres.