Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Municipalities – Question 3
EVERYONE ANSWER this one! The way cities expand is called annexation. Figure 3 on page 28 outlines the methods of annexation, the most common of which is petition and election. What you should all understand about these methods is that at least a majority of those living there must want to become part of the city before it can happen (unless the city owns the land, which is rarely the case). This makes annexation extremely difficult in South Carolina, because many citizens do not want to be part of a city because then they would then have to pay both city taxes and county taxes. Most do not feel that they will get sufficient benefits to outweigh the costs involved. So we have areas, known as “doughnut holes,” that are completely surrounded by city that are not in the city. The situation in North Carolina, which has what most political scientists consider a model annexation law, is quite different. If an area is adjacent to a city and is city-like in character the city has the power to annex it by ordinance, whether the residents like it or not. Ok, so here is the question, and this is a thought question to which you will find no factual answer in the book. Consider these two alternative situations. What arguments can you make for doing things the way South Carolina does it and for the way North Carolina does it? Try to make at least one good argument on each side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The way South Carolina does there annexation is fair but also what keeps South Carolina so far behind in things. The reason I say it is fair is the fact that instead of the local government enforcing a county to become or be part of a city it gives it a choice which is fair but also negative in the aspect of growth for that community. The reason I say this is because I remember a town named Pelion and Pelion's land was owned by one man. They called him "Old Man Shurpet." He owned all the land in Pelion and would not allow anyone to buy it. Pelion paid the utilites in small little train box building and there grocery store and gas station was one togather. This was all the town of Pelion had and they could not force because by law he was not breaking any rules. Many people in the town wasnted things to change but "Old Man Shurpet" would not allow it. I feel this is what keep some towns so far behind. Of course when he pasted his sone took over and sold the land and now pelion have more things public facilities in theire town. North Carolina system of the annexation may not be as fair as South Carolina but I think it is the best way to go for the interest of the state. That way you do not have things in towns such as the case with "Old Man Shurmpet" taking place.
Cequita D Edmond
I think the way that South Carolina handles annexation is fair an dit gives the residents a choice in the matter. Whereas North Carolina just does it regardless or not. I have to give it North Carolina they are strong enough to sya we are the government and we can make decisions if we want to. But a guy like me likes Fairness in my governmnet. But in to be honest I like the way South Carolina handles its differences between city and county. I think that the annexation rules that South Carolina have are the best to have in a state that stll has a lot of land and many areas that are ecoming cities. Some people like the city abd some like the small town life so let the people choose.
I agree with the way that North Carolina is handling annexation. I also believe that South Carolina is behind and should take the initiative to step up and do what is best for the state as a whole. If they do not then they run into too many little problems and confusion. I understand that some people make like the small town life but I also believe that some of those people who like their small town life, also complain about not receiving some of the better things that other cities receive like the best schools, fire stations, police officers, parks, recreation facilities, etc. I also believe that South Carolina has a lot of potential for growth and their way of annexation may be fair compared to North Carolina, but government cannot be fair in everything.
-Kaycee Doying
The whole idea of annexation is kind of a win-lose situation to me. The chapter has shed a lot of light on the subject and I find the debate rather interesting.
The way South Carolina handles annexation is fair but at the same time is hindering growth in the city. High Percentages of property owners who own equally proportions of property values have to agree to annexation reforms in South Carolina which makes it hard for these reforms to pass. On the other hand, North Carolina has had the guts to make a bold move that is somewhat unfair, but has made most parts of the state a successful metropolitian area. I must admit, I'm torn between the two, but moreso on North Carolina because it proves that sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to get the job done.
CoShendra Jackson
I can understand first hand about South Carolina’s annexation policy. I live in North Augusta and we have many “doughnut holes.” The way that South Carolina decides what areas to annex is extremely fair. Being part of the city means paying twice the taxes and people should have the right to decide whether they want to spend their money on a new set of taxes in addition to their old ones. On the other hand, North Carolina’s policy is better for the people in several ways. They have to pay double the taxes but they also get city benefits. For example, here in North Augusta, there are several areas along one of our main roads that are in the county but not the city. If something happens in these areas (i.e. a wreck, burglary, etc.) the people have to wait for the county police. People in North Carolina would not have to worry about this because they are automatically in the city. South Carolina has to have the majority vote to be made a part of the city. Overall, I agree with South Carolina’s policy but I live in a part that is in the city. I would hate to be forced to live in the city.
-Sarah Luckey
When it comes to annexation in South Carolina, the residents determine whether or not they want to become a city. Annexation affects landowners, businesses, and residents directly. Since annexation is only allowed if the majority of the people want to become a city, it is very hard to establish cities in South Carolina. The obvious benefit of the South Carolina way is that it makes the residents happy because they get to chose what they want. Our method is completely voluntary; therefore, no one feels forced to pay extra taxes if they do not want to. Although some residents believe that the cost is too much for the services, more services will probably be provided if more money is coming in. More and more people are moving out of the city area into the suburban area. Everyone has there own reasons for doing so; however, the idea of paying city taxes is not something everyone likes.
Without the growth of cities, a lack of development occurs. North Carolina has benefited greatly from this type of involuntary annexation. Urban development is essential to economic development and North Carolina has witnessed that. Also, cities are able to provide for services that counties and special purpose governments are not able to provide.
Although North Carolina’s method for annexation works, we have to ask ourselves if their way would work for South Carolina. I do not think this is a question of whether South Carolina or North Carolina is “fair” by their ways of annexation. North Carolina forces certain places to become part of the city; however, they are not forced to pay taxes with no benefits.
Julie Kate
I believe the way South Carolina does the annexation process is fair. The argument I am going to make is that in most cases where cities annex, they rapidly produce more homes in that area. Once a city is annexed in South Carolina areas become very congested. I believe residents know that annexation can lead to over population. I know that in my hometown of Summerville, this is becoming the trend more and more. Not many citizens want to annex because of the fact that they have to pay more taxes, and if you leave it up to the citizens it probably is not going to happen most often. It would mean cities have to up the prices of taxes to pay for fire stations and police force as well as other things. Cities would also have to pay for water and sewer and the everyday city services. Since it is taxpayer dollars that would increase I believe SC’s way of annexing is the fairest. However, NC’s way of letting the city do it no matter the what the people want is probably in the best interest of the city. SC’s way is left up to the citizens and NC’s way leaves it up to the city based on ordinances. If the city feels it is in the best interest to annex then they can go ahead and do it rather than wait for approval from citizens.
Matt Spivey
I think the fact that SC gives the residents a choice. I also think the way NC is also fair. Yes it gives the residents a choice however; sometimes you have to take a utilitarian approach like NC, the greater good for the greater number of people. In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. All lot of times the individual residents are only looking for their best interest and not necessarily the interest of their neighbor. One thing we have seen so far is that struggle for power. Federal government reigns supreme, the state is step-child of the federal government and the local and county governments are the proverbial red headed step child. Sometimes you can have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The term fair is truly relative in this case. Fair in the sense that it would mean less taxes for the citizen and it also fair for the government to be able to govern and make decisions for the whole. We elect the officials to make these decisions for us, to do what is best. I think over time those wanted to hold on to the traditional lifestyle and not be a part of a city will soon have no choice in the matter. One thing that I have noticed since I have returned earlier this year, the Aiken, North August area is growing they are putting houses and Wal-Mart’s everywhere. Soon those “doughnut holes” will become apart of the whole.
Erica Wilson Armour
Now the way I look at it is that South Carolina is just right and we don’t need to change. Haha! It just allows the people to have the power to chose if they would want to become a city or not. I don’t have anything bad to say to that because I as a citizen feel like I have some power. I mean I am the one that would pay both city and county taxes so I feel that it should be my chose and that I should have the right to vote on it and if the other people don’t agree with me during the election than I would have to just live with it. But at least I was given the opportunity to vote if I wanted to be annexed.
Now on the North Carolina side just seems to me that town council would have a lot of power. So when election time comes around us as citizens needs to think of who we are putting in so that it would benefit us as the citizen and not someone that would take advantage of the situation. What I’m trying to say is that hopefully they are thinking about the people and not the money that would come in to their pockets. That’s what I would be scared at if I lived there. But on the other hand the way that us SC people do it, it slows downs progress and the way NC doesn’t.
Randy Lucas
South Carolina’ most common method of allowing the residents of the area proposed to be annexed a say in voting reduces dissention. If the residents are better served by the services offered by the city they would prefer to be annexed and taxed.
South Carolina and North Carolina’s method could increase the city’s tax base by brining in more tax dollars. In a situation where emergency services such as police are needed the annexed portion would now rely on the adjacent police agency. Whereas if the residents were not annexed it would give law enforcement an enormous response time. From a safety standpoint annexation is the best method. North Carolina is justified in annexing an area because it will best suit the resident in that area.
Annexation and eminent domain are similar to me. This reminds me of the eminent domain event is Abbeville, South Carolina several years ago that left a deputy sheriff and state constable dead. Tax Payers are adamant about not allow the government to take what’s theirs.
DeQuawn Smith
I would have to go with the N.C. method of annexing than the S.C. method. The S.C. method of annexation is through a petition process and election. Even though it seems fair for the citizen to have a choice in the matter, the long term effects are hurt the establishment. One thing is to administer justice. If laws are different in from county to city to town, then how would a citizen now if he/she is doing something wrong? Another thing why "donut holes" is not being organized and this can present to be a problem during election time. Classifying which head of office to vote according to the different borders may be most costly if not organized properly. Another problem we face if the division of services, because of this, citizen may have to pay different bills under different rates. If more cities were to replace the "donut holes,” we would most likely see better facilities, parks, and utilizes than what is present now in S.C.
The only argumenet for South Carolina doing things like this is in my opinion, because it more than likely won't happen. By means of the Petition-election method, a majority of the people must approve the citizens must approve it. South Carolina is filled with so many little towns and areas that we probably never heard of. They are quite comfortable that way too! If we used North Carolina's method of annexation, there would be lots of upset tax payers. My argument for North Carolina's method is simply for the tax money. Forceing people to become a part of a city because they live in a place that is "city-like" in character, is not fair. I'm sure that this happens often in North Carolina. It is a growing state. They do it simply to gain money from additional taxes.
Many interesting comments, and the clear majority prefer's SC's way of doing it, which usually means NOT doing annexation, because as most of you say, people rarely choose to pay more taxes.
I was interested in your definition of "fair." To most of you fair means allowing each person to decide for themselves. So what we have is most people choosing to be "free-riders," taking advantage of the amenities and opportunities provided by living near a city while not having to share in the cost of running that city. Is that fair?
The main issue concerns growth and development, whether it will be planned and orderly or happen in the form of sprawl with little regard to traffic or congestion or how land use affects the community. Matt S did not have it right when he said that development follows annexation. Development will happen anyhow -- the only question is whether the development will happen in an orderly way that is consistent with community values. Cities that can unilaterally annex areas that are to be developed can then ensure that the development does not upset traffic patterns or affect the quality of life of nearby neighborhoods.
Consider, if you will, the problems with traffic on the southside of Aiken. Much of the development there is unplanned and uncontrolled because it is in the county. By the time that Aiken City government and Aiken County government come to some agreement on new roads, the congestion is a real mess, adversely affecting everyone who lives there. The developers of course have made their money and left!
I remember years ago when I was coaching a youth soccer game at Weeks Rec field. Someone in the neighborhood behind the field was burning leaves and smoke was drifting across the field in such volume that many of the kids could not breathe and you could hardly see the field. One of the kids on the team had his father in the stands, an Aiken Public Safety Officer. I asked him what could be done, and he said nothing could be done because that neighborhood, though clearly in the middle of the City of Aiken, was not in the legal entity of Aiken, so people there could do whatever they wanted no matter how it affected others. These people enjoy higher property values because they are near things like city parks and stores, yet they do not pay for the upkeep of the roads and other infrasturcture (like drainage) and act without regard for the welfare of their neighbors as though they live in the middle of nowhere. It seems to me that this is far from fair.
If you like trailers next to pig farms next to tacky businesses next to nice homes with heavy traffic all around and not even having traffic lights in sync -- if you like what is happening along Whiskey Road in the SouthSide (and what will soon happen along Hitchcock Parkway near the university), they you should like the way SC does annexation.
Many of you need to more carefully proof your answers -- some fairly good answers were downgraded because they had so many errors in them!
Bob B
I believe annexation and development, either together or separate offer some disruption in the everyday life of the residents who already live their. Most places do annex because they know that more development is about to take place and they want to get those people the same quality of life, or atleast try to. Also, if they annex that will allow for more money to enter the local economy.
The North Carolina does thier annexation is better because the maor decsions should be made by the state, not the people. Although this will make small towns more industrialized I feel it is better for the community as a whole. Overall it would improve the quailty of life and may update alot of old qualities about a town.
matt burroughs
Post a Comment