Slightly Different: cities surrounded BY FW
#1 jonnyrules23
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:29 PM
Paschal rules!!!
#2 gdvanc
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:30 PM
#3 DrkLts
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:30 PM
#4 ghughes
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:30 PM
#5 jonnyrules23
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:31 PM
Paschal rules!!!
#6 Urbndwlr FW
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:31 PM
There are others that FW has not annexed such as Westover Hills and Benbrook. I don't know why certain cities agreed to be annexed back then. Perhaps they occurred before the suburban flight took place. Now, few suburbs suffer from the same weight of centralized, old city infrastructure and low-valuation districts as larger cities do, and would be unlikely to want to participate in servicing those costs unless they (suburbs) were themselves in a financial pinch.
I would be suprised to find Keller, Crowley, NRH, Southlake, Colleyville, Westlake, or Aledo knocking at Fort Worth's door any time soon requesting to join our tax base to jump into the same pool of resources and have to immediately start supporting the costs of older, lower-income neighborhoods in parts of Fort Worth. FW would have to offer them something sweet to jump on board.
#7 normanfd
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:31 PM
#8 John T Roberts
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:32 PM
#9 dismuke
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:32 PM
Yet, at the same time I wonder why some suburbs such as Everman, Edgecliff Village and Forest Hill don't knock on Fort Worth's door. A couple of these towns even pay higher property taxes than FW with pathetic sales tax revenues while not producing better or more efficient municipal services. The same is pretty much true with Cockrell Hill, Wilmer and Hutchins in Dallas County.
Sometimes people in outlying areas do not want to be subject to the various ordinances and codes of the larger city. This is especially true in semi-rural areas where people are able to keep animals on their property, operate businesses out of their homes and such. The other fear that people in such areas have is that, if they become part of a much larger city, they will be regarded at City Hall as being little more than a bunch of hicks in some backwater and their voices will be drowned out by the other areas of the city and ignored - and as a result, "undesirable" projects such as garbage dumps, sewage treatment plants, halfway houses, jails, subsidized housing projects that residents in other parts of the city do not want nearby will end up being dumped in their back yards.
The other factor is whether the officials at City Hall think it will result in more taxes being sent to city coffers than are spent. Thus if an area out in the country starts to fill up with high dollar homes, officials in the bigger city are more than eager to gobble everything up and begin providing people with "services" - even if the property owners in the impacted area do not want the services and staunchly oppose being annexed. On the other hand, there are places such as Sandbranch, a small desperately poor community in an unincorporated area of southern Dallas County. Sandbranch is - or at least was the last time I drove through the area a few years ago, - about as close to Third World living conditions as one can probably find in this part of Texas. There is no city trash pickup service - so it simply piles up in the yards. There is no city water - and many of the wells in the area are contaminated. Many of the houses look like they are about to fall down. Despite the extreme poverty of the area, there is no public transportation. The area is begging for city "services." Yet you don't see the City of Dallas rushing in to annex Sandbranch, despite the fact that city's government has a great many politicians and officials who claim that their only motive is a concern for the poor, underprivileged and less fortunate. The bottom line is if the politicians can't tax it, they aren't interested in annexing it.
#10 ghughes
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:34 PM
One of the factors that reduced Fort Worth's last "land grab" was that someone finally did the calculations showing the cost of services (pipes and streets) for homes on 10 acre lots. We would never have remotely recaptured the expense through property taxes.
#11 dismuke
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:35 PM
And, as a taxpaying city resident, I agree with that, "if we can't tax it, don't annex it" thinking.
I too agree with that if the entire matter was simply limited to people in surrounding areas deciding that they want to become part of Fort Worth in order to access city services and City officials needed to make a decision one way or another. That would be a reasonable basis for deciding that as it would basically determine whether the new areas would become a burden on the city's existing residents.
The problem with it is in the context of forced annexations. There are some people in outlying areas who do not want the city's services, do not want to pay the higher taxes and do not want to have a bunch of city bureaucrats telling them what they can and cannot do on their own hard earned property. But if is determined that such people would pay more in taxes than they would consume in city services, the people at City Hall will push to annex them regardless as to whether or not these people wish it to happen. And that is why. when you look at municipal boundaries in the semi-rural areas, you will see a very bizarre looking checkerboard with a bunch of tiny squares connected by thin lines. Often times, the squares that are annexed are where there are taxable assets while the untouched squares do not yet have much in the way of taxable assets and might end up putting the city on the hook for services. So look at it from the perspective of a rural resident who has built a nice high dollar house and has made a number of improvements to his property. Such a property owner is viewed by City officials as nothing more than a sacrificial milch cow - and the victim, according to Texas law, basically has little or no say-so in the matter. The motive for such forced annexations is usually nothing more than a desire on the part of City officials to get their grubby paws on the property (in this case, their money) of other people outside the city's limits in order to fund their various schemes and budgets. The only difference between such behavior on the part of City officials and a pick pocket is a pick pocket does not try to justify what does in the name of some allegedly "higher purpose" and the city is required to toss a small portion of the loot back in the form of unwanted "services." A pick pocket also goes away - the city tax collectors will be back year after year and soon there will be all sorts of restrictions put into effect telling the property owner what he can and cannot do with his property. So in the context of forced annexations, "if we can't tax it, don't annex it" thinking is little different than what goes through the mind of a pick-pocket as he surveys a crowd and chooses a victim.
#12 John T Roberts
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:35 PM
#13 dismuke
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:36 PM
Dismuke, do you think the Texas Legislature should pass a law requiring that the only way a city could annex land would be for the property owner to ask the city to be annexed? Or do you think that all annexations should be by the election process?
Yes, I think that is exactly what is needed.
I am certainly all for a property owner being able to ask a city to consider annexing his land. But I don't know that the first option you mentioned would end up being very practical. It might work in very sparsely populated areas - but such areas are not likely to be candidates for annexation. The problem is that most unincorporated areas on the outskirts of a city already have a fair number of housing developments, though many have lot sizes of up to a few acres. There is never going to be unanimity when it comes to something such as annexation and I can see how there might be potential problems with urban or suburban areas peppered with islands of tiny lot-sized parcels of unincorporated land. So I think the election process is the only viable solution for something like that.
As to how elections should be held and how the boundaries should be determined is something which would need to be given careful consideration. Clearly, it would not be a fair process if a 2 acre trailer park with 100 registered voters were able to determine the annexation status of the surrounding 20 square miles of ranch land on which the only residents are the 10 families that own it.
Perhaps one fair way of doing it would be to require residents in favor of annexation to submit a petition with the signatures of a certain percentage of impacted residents in order to put the issue on the ballot. The boundaries of the proposed annexed area could be determined by a sort of "connect the dots" of the outlying property lines of those who signed the petition. Those outside the boundaries who did not sign the petition presumably do not want to be annexed and will remain unincorporated. If the election decides in favor of annexation, the city government would have a certain period of time to determine whether or not it even wants to annex the area. I would even go one step further: there would be a certain waiting period before the annexation takes place during which fringe property owners whose property abuts land which will remain unincorporated will have the right to say they want no part of the annexation and can pull out and remain unincorporated. This would, of course, push the boundary back and make someone else a fringe property owner whose land will abut an unincorporated area and they too will have the right to pull out. This would push the boundary back further again and the process would continue until it reaches property owners who do want to be annexed. Non-resident property owners would not be eligible, of course, to vote in the election - but if they own fringe property, they would be able to choose to pull out. Through such a process, the result would be that the only people annexed would be those who either want to be annexed or whose property is surrounded by those who want to be annexed. To me, that is the fairest way of doing it. But whatever process is used, the entire purpose of it should be to protect the rights and respect the desires of the impacted residents.
What about the wishes and desires of the officials and residents in the annexing city? Well - apart from accepting or rejecting a proposed annexation after an affirmative vote, they don't properly have any say-so in the political self-determination of residents outside their city's boundaries.
I would also suggest that once an annexation takes place, the residents of that area would have 5 years in which they could circulate a petition to call for an election to reverse the annexation. This would be a form of protection and recourse for residents who might agree to annexation based on false promises made by city officials in order to win the election but end up not being followed through on. Such recourse is necessary because newly annexed areas are not likely to have the population and, therefore, the political muscle, to otherwise hold city leaders to their promises
What makes forced annexation especially repugnant to me is that it is downright anti-American. Basically, what happens in a forced annexation is that a political decision which will have an enormous impact on a person's lifestyle and property is being made by a governmental body in which the resident has NO vote or representation whatsoever. That goes against the very nature of the American system of government and, quite frankly, it amazes me how it has not been declared unconstitutional by the courts.
#14 ghughes
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:37 PM
As to the recall vote... first I'd like to see us more able to do it with elected officials, although in the one-newspaper and no-TV town of Fort Worth incumbancy is usually sufficient to prevail. But in the Arizona model it is citizens agreeing with citizens: "May we join your corporation" and "Yes". Presumably those being annexed have done a modicum of homework on their new city, but the point is well taken. I wouldn't have a problem with a potential exit path.
It might be worthwhile to require a supermajority from the annexed area, too. Say, 65%.
#15
Posted 26 April 2004 - 11:30 AM
#16
Posted 27 April 2004 - 01:55 PM
#17 Nick
Posted 30 April 2004 - 02:06 PM
Beside they will still be landlocked . We need to focus on our ETJ even more important is the over all quality of life in the people who will be annexed. Is that what a city is all about anyway?Than population?
#18
Posted 04 June 2005 - 09:34 AM
#19
Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:52 AM
Seriously though, one of the reasons the city does like to annex ejt before it becomes part of a rural suburb is that it's more expensive for FW to upgrade a developed area to meet city codes on things like water and roads than it is to just annex it and develop it to city code in the first place. For example, let's say that FW were to annex Benbrook - which they should have done since Benbrook kids even attend FWISD - well, there are still parts of Benbrook where the storm drains aren't anything more than ditches on the side of the road. If FW were to annex then they'd have to go in and bring those areas up to code by installing proper storm drains with curbs and gutters, etc. Then they have to also think about things like fire hydrants and providing Fire and Police services such as 911 service. The city is already having problems meeting the needs of the areas they city has annexed in the past 5 years... But, if the city just grows into an ejt area and is developed by developers who have to apply for building codes with the City of FW, they they're responsible for building out the area according to city requirements. So, a lot of the growth in areas around Alliance that are actually in FW city limits are being developed according to city codes and standards. That is why FW has been so aggressive at annexing - it's a prevention thing...
#20
Posted 03 February 2006 - 12:21 PM
As a really odd way of rounding out the area, Lost Creek is part of Fort Worth, pays Fort Worth tax, gets Fort Worth services, etc. as I said, but who delivers the mail? Aledo! That's right. Everything about the community is Fort Worth, but when it was started the only post office that would deliver mail to it was Aledo's. As a result, most everybody in the community has an Aledo mailing address, even though the community is very much a part of the city of Fort Worth. This leads to confusion every once in a while - as I remember getting a Fort Worth library card when we moved there after having lived in Brock for about 20 years, it took some time to explain that *yes,* we're Fort Worth residents despite the Aledo address.
--
Kara B.
#21
Posted 03 February 2006 - 12:37 PM
Funny, because neighborhoods out our way just went through this. I'm in the Lost Creek golf course area, and Lost Creek is a part of Fort Worth. Fort Worth taxes, Fort Worth fire & police, etc. The neighborhoods on either side of Lost Creek, on the same street, are *not* part of Fort Worth. So, just driving down that Highway 80 access road, you go from Not Fort Worth, to Fort Worth, to Not Fort Worth in the span of a fairly short distance. I've always thought it was funny. Recently, Fort Worth tried to annex the surrounding communities, but they resisted and remained on their own.
As a really odd way of rounding out the area, Lost Creek is part of Fort Worth, pays Fort Worth tax, gets Fort Worth services, etc. as I said, but who delivers the mail? Aledo! That's right. Everything about the community is Fort Worth, but when it was started the only post office that would deliver mail to it was Aledo's. As a result, most everybody in the community has an Aledo mailing address, even though the community is very much a part of the city of Fort Worth. This leads to confusion every once in a while - as I remember getting a Fort Worth library card when we moved there after having lived in Brock for about 20 years, it took some time to explain that *yes,* we're Fort Worth residents despite the Aledo address.
The problem is even bigger in the 76248 ZIP code as you have over 10,000 homes that are associated with Keller, but actually are in Fort Worth. The 76062 (Haslet) ZIP code will be the next to take off as the 9,000 home Sendera Ranch development is being built.
#22
Posted 03 February 2006 - 01:37 PM
GENIUS!
www.iheartfw.com
#23
Posted 03 February 2006 - 08:58 PM
I've got that problem with my zip (76148). Am I NRH, Fort Worth, Haltom City or Watauga (sounds like a chiefs name?).
Safly, Some students who have grown up in the area have told me that WATAUGA means "land of springs" or something to that effect in an Indian language (Cherokee?) spoken there before Anglo settlement. The name is also prominent as a county in North Carolina, so pioneers who came here from there might have imported the name.
#24
Posted 30 March 2006 - 08:15 PM
Oddly enough, I think Haltom City has enough going for it personality-wise to stay its own city. Watauga, on the other hand, would do especially well to ask Fort Worth to annex it. Ah, my memories from childhood. Our streets were riddled with potholes. Our "department of public safety" was filled with rednecks who were especially good at running speed traps but horrid at preventing crime. We had a burglary spree in our neighborhood that spared our house only because my dad liked to let wasps build nests above all our windows. Our creeks flooded on an almost yearly basis. There was a speed lab right across the street from my house.
And due to a very unfortunate case of intermunicipal noncooperation North Richland Hills zoned the area just south of the Watauga city line "industrial" and located a food-processing plant just 100 feet south of the back fence line of my old street (Old Mill Circle). In 1983 my folks bought a house for $65,000. In 1992 it was worth $40,000. And the neighborhood smelled like old chicken fat all summer long.
#25
Posted 30 March 2006 - 11:11 PM
Mmmmeh.
Sho AM GOOD!
www.iheartfw.com
#26
Posted 05 April 2006 - 08:19 AM
There may have been other factors involved other than just that location in Watauga. I know people who plunked down just over 300K for homes in Monticello in the early eighties just to "need" to get out of them 8-9 years later (expansing families and such) yet were not able to get any bids over 230K. So your parent's home value depreciation was pretty on par with most residential real estate in Texas in the late 80s/early 90s. Get ready to see something similar happen in the future.
#27
Posted 05 April 2006 - 08:55 AM
watauga is a working-class city that has only recently found some significant non-residential tax base (from the shopping centers on denton hwy). when we moved to watauga in 1983 the only significant retail outlet was harold's foods at watauga rd and denton hwy and the fina station across the road. there was a winn-dixie (RIP) across rufe snow in NRH on the other side of town.
even haltom city has more of a mixed tax base.
it's the same with school districts, i might add...just look at san antonio, where there are half-a-dozen ISDs wholly or mostly contained in one city, many of which (edgewood, anyone?) have tax bases which are exclusively low- to middle-income residential.
#28
Posted 05 April 2006 - 09:31 AM
I've got that problem with my zip (76148). Am I NRH, Fort Worth, Haltom City or Watauga (sounds like a chiefs name?). Or do I just have a severe split-personality disorder, or can I honestly be at more than 2 places at the exact same time?
GENIUS!
As far as the post office is concerned, 76148 is a Fort Worth ZIP code, but it's actually NRH, HC and Watauga.
#29
Posted 20 May 2019 - 07:04 AM
Below is an FWBP article reporting the new townhouse development in Forest Hill. I know artist's are fanciful with their colors, but in this case the painting subcontractor should leave the blue paint at the shop.
http://www.fortworth...66c06d7d07.html
I have never understood why incorporated communities exist within or very near a metropolitan area, obvious local examples being Haltom City and Forest Park. That being the case, the project is touted as serving "Fort Worth, Dallas and surrounding suburbs" (i.e., Forest Park being one of them).
Does anyone know what the mayor of Forest Park means by the term "the New Urbanism concept?"
#30
Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:19 AM
I have never understood why incorporated communities exist within or very near a metropolitan area, obvious local examples being Haltom City and Forest Park.
Haltom City and Forest Hill are both incorporated cities. They were both distinct communities before Fort Worth "grew out" to them. I don't understand your confusion about that.
#32
Posted 20 May 2019 - 12:23 PM
I keep seeing everyone say Forest "Park". I'm assuming you mean Forest Hill.
Sorry, just a mindset error. And I know that incorporated and outlying suburban communities are, in most cases, historically earlier towns that were encroached upon by an expanding metropolitan area. I've talked about this myself in past posts in the Forum...just didn't want to repeat myself!
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users