Greenville Annexations

[gman430]

Not sure what the city can do when the state law regarding annexation sucks. 

[vicupstate]

6 hours ago, gman430 said:

Not sure what the city can do when the state law regarding annexation sucks. 

The laws are onerous but Charleston, North Charleston, Mount Pleasant all operate under the same laws and have been able to still grow substantially.  The city is not aggressive enough and hasn't made it a priority. 

[gman430]

6 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

The laws are onerous but Charleston, North Charleston, Mount Pleasant all operate under the same laws and have been able to still grow substantially.  The city is not aggressive enough and hasn't made it a priority. 

Won’t be an easy sale to residents and their conservative attitude in this part of the country especially with inflation running rampant. The last thing anybody wants to pay right now is higher taxes. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

You're speaking all around the answer, gman. And, Vic is right -- it's a matter of being aggressive.

Greenville has to approach this in a multipronged fashion. A part of the City's approach has to be pulling together facts and marketing materials that they can sell to the residents (what is that assumed higher tax bill, and what is being received in return?) . They have a lot of this (as evidenced by the recent Greenville News story on the topic), but it needs to be put forth to potential property owners. Secondly, the City needs a strategy that identifies areas to target for annexation. This includes considering ease of providing services (some areas are more easily serviced by existing infrastructure, while some locales will demand larger investments of capital).  

[Danmire]

It's interesting that the direction of city growth has all been eastward.  Virtually no growth westward.

[GvilleSC]

7 minutes ago, Danmire said:

It's interesting that the direction of city growth has all been eastward.  Virtually no growth westward.

Pretty interesting, indeed. I'm sure the Textile Crescent has something to do with that. 

[vicupstate]

2 hours ago, gman430 said:

Won’t be an easy sale to residents and their conservative attitude in this part of the country especially with inflation running rampant. The last thing anybody wants to pay right now is higher taxes. 

That's the thing. In probably half the cases, they would be lower.  In what few cases they wouldn't be, the difference in water and home insurance rates would offset the increase. 

[distortedlogic]

3 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

You're speaking all around the answer, gman. And, Vic is right -- it's a matter of being aggressive.

Greenville has to approach this in a multipronged fashion. A part of the City's approach has to be pulling together facts and marketing materials that they can sell to the residents (what is that assumed higher tax bill, and what is being received in return?) . They have a lot of this (as evidenced by the recent Greenville News story on the topic), but it needs to be put forth to potential property owners. Secondly, the City needs a strategy that identifies areas to target for annexation. This includes considering ease of providing services (some areas are more easily serviced by existing infrastructure, while some locales will demand larger investments of capital).  

Agreed. And I'm probably in the minority here but I actually think SC has it much closer to the way annexation should be. Something doesn't sit right with me about cities being able to drag in residents basically any time they want, just to inflate their numbers. I am all about more freedom and choice for citizens as much as possible. I would much rather it be where residents can come into a city if/when wanted than being brought in without desire or consent. And that being the case, there is no reason a city like Greenville can't put themselves out there to "sell" themselves if it wants to grow it's boundaries. I'm all for the city population figures being much larger to represent the true size of the city, but not if it means infringement on citizens. I would like the city population to be larger but at the end of the day bragging rights and "mine is bigger than yours" is both pointless and juvenile.

[vicupstate]

2 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

Agreed. And I'm probably in the minority here but I actually think SC has it much closer to the way annexation should be. Something doesn't sit right with me about cities being able to drag in residents basically any time they want, just to inflate their numbers. I am all about more freedom and choice for citizens as much as possible. I would much rather it be where residents can come into a city if/when wanted than being brought in without desire or consent. And that being the case, there is no reason a city like Greenville can't put themselves out there to "sell" themselves if it wants to grow it's boundaries. I'm all for the city population figures being much larger to represent the true size of the city, but not if it means infringement on citizens. I would like the city population to be larger but at the end of the day bragging rights and "mine is bigger than yours" is both pointless and juvenile.

I couldn't disagree more. It is literally one of the worst things this state does. I swear I could write a book on this topic.  By not allowing cities to reflect true boundaries of urban density,  literally thousands of Public Service Districts (PSDs) have been formed instead.  These have little oversight  and created a lot of duplication and waste that cost millions every year.  Economic development is hurt because our cities do not reflect their true size. When I have more time I will go into more detail.   

 

[gman430]

45 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

I couldn't disagree more. It is literally one of the worst things this state does. I swear I could write a book on this topic.  By not allowing cities to reflect true boundaries of urban density,  literally thousands of Public Service Districts (PSDs) have been formed instead.  These have little oversight  and created a lot of duplication and waste that cost millions every year.  Economic development is hurt because our cities do not reflect their true size. When I have more time I will go into more detail.   

 

I agree. By not allowing cities to annex, it tends to create more sprawl and less infrastructure improvements like sidewalks and whatnot in the areas that are county only. With or without higher taxes, being in the city limits pays for itself at the end of the day. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by gman430

[Exile]

2 hours ago, vicupstate said:

I couldn't disagree more. It is literally one of the worst things this state does. I swear I could write a book on this topic.  By not allowing cities to reflect true boundaries of urban density,  literally thousands of Public Service Districts (PSDs) have been formed instead.  These have little oversight  and created a lot of duplication and waste that cost millions every year.  Economic development is hurt because our cities do not reflect their true size. When I have more time I will go into more detail.   

 

 

1 hour ago, gman430 said:

I agree. By not allowing cities to annex, it tends to create more sprawl and less infrastructure improvements like sidewalks and whatnot in the areas that are county only. With or without higher taxes, being in the city limits pays for itself at the end of the day. 

Whether current state law is a great big mess or not, I find it disconcerting that the expressed sentiment here seems to lean toward a legal system that allows cities to unilaterally and without recourse bring people and property under their legal/taxing/eminent domain/etc. authority. Such actions don't always result in a cheaper  deal for those taken over, or even a wash. I've known people who were summarily and imperially taken over into municipalities only to find their costs skyrocketing far past the possibility of a wash.

Also, suburbs, for whatever you might think of them, are typically inhabited by well-educated, responsible people. They don't need to be managed, especially not by some governmental authority. But if the city can woo them, more power to it.

And the day they try to put sidewalks in my neighborhood--I guarantee it would be over the strong objections of pretty much every resident here--is the day I go to war.

[vicupstate]

54 minutes ago, Exile said:

 

Whether current state law is a great big mess or not, I find it disconcerting that the expressed sentiment here seems to lean toward a legal system that allows cities to unilaterally and without recourse bring people and property under their legal/taxing/eminent domain/etc. authority. Such actions don't always result in a cheaper  deal for those taken over, or even a wash. I've known people who were summarily and imperially taken over into municipalities only to find their costs skyrocketing far past the possibility of a wash.

Also, suburbs, for whatever you might think of them, are typically inhabited by well-educated, responsible people. They don't need to be managed, especially not by some governmental authority. But if the city can woo them, more power to it.

And the day they try to put sidewalks in my neighborhood--I guarantee it would be over the strong objections of pretty much every resident here--is the day I go to war.

Most of the services provided by cities are also provided outside of them, but instead by a hodge-podge of PSDs, private water and trash companies, etc.  I have not found that they are either cheaper (all things considered) nor more responsive to the residents.  Cities generally have more restrictive laws, but the lack of them makes for very badly planned and executed development, that is completely auto-centric and more congested. There may be exceptions here and there but that has been the rule in this state.  As for people being annexed against their will, that can only happen in very rare instances and ONLY when the majority of affected people support it.          

[Exile]

12 hours ago, vicupstate said:

As for people being annexed against their will, that can only happen in very rare instances and ONLY when the majority of affected people support it.          

Good for SC then on that note. The examples I'm aware of were in other states.

[distortedlogic]

20 hours ago, vicupstate said:

I couldn't disagree more. It is literally one of the worst things this state does. I swear I could write a book on this topic.  By not allowing cities to reflect true boundaries of urban density,  literally thousands of Public Service Districts (PSDs) have been formed instead.  These have little oversight  and created a lot of duplication and waste that cost millions every year.  Economic development is hurt because our cities do not reflect their true size. When I have more time I will go into more detail.   

 

I get that, but I think this is exactly why cities need to be better about finding ways to appeal to citizens; assuming that's possible. Cities often have a reputation for being a bit of a bully, and it's often pretty accurate. Forcing residents into their boundaries automatically, like what happens in most states, only furthers that reputation; thus people resisting. It may not be possible, but if a city like Greenville could show potential residents what they can gain by being annexed, and how they can actually get more for the same money it might start to change perceptions. Either way, I would rather it be the citizen's choice than the entity's.

As for PSDs, that's a can of worms but cities have contributed to that monster themselves. Maybe different annexation and services practices from the beginning would have resulted in a lot less PSDs to start with.

[vicupstate]

533 Woodruff Rd annexation

2.43 acres

[vicupstate]

Quote

As for PSDs, that's a can of worms but cities have contributed to that monster themselves. Maybe different annexation and services practices from the beginning would have resulted in a lot less PSDs to start with.

I disagree strongly that cities themselves contributed to the creation of PSDs. The annexation laws made PSDs a necessity because annexation was so difficult.  Most of the major PSDs (the ones that serve a large population and that provide least one major (ie expensive) service, like water and/or sewer) were formed in the late '40's and early '50's.  SC was run almost entirely by rural interests and the officials of the time had no real clue of how to handle the massive suburbanization that was only just beginning to unfold. 

There are numerous changes that could be made that would help matters, but would still allow consent or at the very least majority rule to apply.      

[GvilleSC]

I  had not seen this before and I don't know how well it is known to the public, but the City has an annexation guide on their website. I think they should mail these out to all property owners adjacent to the City's boundaries. 

https://greenvillesc.gov/317/Annexation

[vicupstate]

Leed Academy 16.78 acres on Mauldin Rd.

Anderson Rd and Conwell Street 1.12 acres  

8 Calder Dr.   .16 acres  

2550 N. Pleasantburg  3 acres

[vicupstate]

2836 Laurens Rd 10.1 acres

101 Halton Rd  .829 acres

29.14 acres  Bramlett Rd. et al

361 Halton Rd.  1.446 acres

 

[NewlyUpstate]

13 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

2836 Laurens Rd 10.1 acres

101 Halton Rd  .829 acres

29.14 acres  Bramlett Rd. et al

361 Halton Rd.  1.446 acres

 

The Bramlett plot along the Reedy is a juicy one.  I'm no expert on annexation laws, but I wonder if the intent there is to work their way up to the On The Trail development.

Edited June 1, 2022 by NewlyUpstate

[GvilleSC]

13 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

2836 Laurens Rd 10.1 acres

101 Halton Rd  .829 acres

29.14 acres  Bramlett Rd. et al

361 Halton Rd.  1.446 acres

 

The Duke Power annexation could really open up some new opportunities for future annexation, namely Monaghan Mill & Riverside apartments. 

[vicupstate]

3 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

The Duke Power annexation could really open up some new opportunities for future annexation, namely Monaghan Mill & Riverside apartments. 

I was about to post the same thing. Monaghan, Riverside and the one next to Riverside. All would now be contiguous.  If all three came in, that would be about 1,000 city residents added.    

[vicupstate]

11 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

I was about to post the same thing. Monaghan, Riverside and the one next to Riverside (Water Tower). All would now be contiguous.  If all three came in, that would be about 1,000 city residents added.    

Edit:  It might very well be possible to annex SCL RR ROW from Water Tower to the Poe Mill project. 

[vicupstate]

Monday City Council will consider changes to the Water covenant requirement for annexation.  It would extend the annexation (when feasible) requirement perimeter from 1 mile from existing limits to 1.5 miles. It would also forbid annexation to OTHER cities inside this perimeter (ie Mauldin).

Updates to Annexation Water Covenant   

[GvilleSC]

Happy to see the City getting serious on this. Whether they actively annex or not, it’s nice to see them playing defense against Mauldin.