Decatur Preps for Large-Scale Annexation As Creation of North DeKalb Cities Looms
Decatur Metro | December 16, 2013Map Above: “A very preliminary draft” of future annexations by the City of Decatur to prepare for City of Briarcliff
“…it is likely that by 2018, all of DeKalb County north of Memorial Drive will be located in either an existing or new city.” Those are the words of Decatur City Manager Peggy Merriss in a memo to the City Commission.
As such, Decatur needs to get it’s often messy, complicated and controversial annexation house in order.
Over the past 5 years or so, Decatur officials have struggled to pass a larger scale annexation bill to incorporate more commercial property inside the city limits. Opposition has come from both sides, with unincorporated DeKalb residents balking at Decatur’s higher tax rate and groups city residents cringing at the addition of any more residential property that could overwhelm the city’s popular school system.
Well there’s now another ship on the horizon – the City of Briarcliff. According to a letter from the City Manager to the Commission as part of the agenda for tonight’s meeting, “the proposed borders of the City of Briarcliff surround the existing City of Decatur northern city limits on all sides. Once the city is surrounded by other municipal borders, our city limits are set and there will be no capacity to change. Basically, the city limits will be permanently set.”
Ms. Merriss suggests that the City of Lakeside – which runs along the southern side of the I-85 auto-river up in North DeKalb – has Republican backers in both the Georgia House and Senate, is the city most likely to be created in the coming legislative session in January. But that doesn’t mean that Decatur or any of the other existing DeKalb cities aren’t going to begin getting their annexation ducks in a row now. Again, the City Manager…
“…we anticipate putting together for your consideration in January 2014, a project budget proposal to include professional demographic, financial, capital planning and market analysis assistance to review and analyze potential annexation options and the impacts on the community. This group could also provide assistance and expertise with the efforts of the community-based committee’s work.”
She also states that the city should make sure that this potential annexation be a part of ongoing community discussions with the school system regarding enrollment and facilities, as well as maintaining good communication with the neighboring city of Avondale Estates to make sure that the cities’ plans are consistent.
2014 should be interesting.
Ooh. This should be a good discussion!
So much for the good cheer and warmth of the holidays, here on Decatur Metro.
In the red corner… residents of un-incorporated Dekalb facing annexation, libertarians and fans of the status quo.
In the blue corner… fans of urban planning and Decatur growth.
I sometimes sit in both corners, so I will be muttering to myself in the Neutral corner.
And then there’s the purple corner: those who fear the impact on CSD enrollment….
+1
Is there a corner for people who recognize that DeKalb County is a failed government, the status quo is not an option, and the choice for unincorporated folks is between incorporating or annexing?
I’ll pick up a growler of something good at Ale Yeah! and meet you in that corner, TR.
I’m with you on that, the Midway Woods neighborhood would be a nice addition to the City of Decatur.
No it would not. It is all residential and would be a revenue negative addition.
I do wonder if any of the business around North Decatur and Clairemont will have a change of heart about being incorporated into the City of Decatur, if it looks like they’ll be joining a city one way or the other.
Although the opinions will vary, it may come down to each city’s respective level of taxation. CoD will probably still be the highest. If you are a Decatur adjacent business owner, your success is more driven by your proximity to your clientele than having a particular address, and you want to keep costs down. To put it another way, who here is going to stop shopping at Wal-Mart just because it is located in Lakeside or Briarcliff instead of Decatur.
This is true but in many cases it won’t be a tenant decision. It’ll be a property owner decision, so they’ll likely also consider long-term redevelopment options. At least as of right now, Decatur has zoning on the books that allows for more intensive, market-focused urban redevelopment by right than does DeKalb. Seems to me that a sizable factor, in addition to the tax burdens you mention, will be how progressive these proposed cities are likely to be in terms of land planning. That’s where the long-term returns are.
“Decatur has zoning on the books that allows for more intensive, market-focused urban redevelopment by right than does DeKalb”
Can you explain what you mean by this? I’m not challenging what you are saying, just wondering what specifically you’re referring to?
Just that much of the commercial property sites under consideration would likely by designated Decatur’s MU zoning category which allows for greater flexibility of options and higher density redevelopment by right than what’s possible under their present commercial designation.
Thank you. I was just curious what you meant by that. My perception of Dekalb, is that they would approve pretty much anything, as long as it generated tax revenue. So your comment made me curious that maybe they weren’t as lenient as I had imagined.
I don’t understand Ms. Merriss’ letter.
On the one hand, she says “It does not seem realistic to think that the General Assembly will adopt all three in their current form; nor does it seem realistic that they will get specifically involved in redrawing the maps. . . . However, as indicated by all of the activity at the end of the 2013 General Assembly session, it is impossible to predict what could happen during the session.”
Then she says, “Based on what has happened in the past year and looking at what might be happening in the coming year or in the near future, it is likely that by 2018, all of DeKalb County north of Memorial Drive will be located in either an existing or new city.”
If this is impossible to predict, what is the basis for her prediction of the “likely” outcome?
The potential boundaries for these new cities have some overlaps on the proposed city maps. Hence they all three cannot be created using the existing forms of there maps. Here’s a link to illustrate the point with regards to Lakeside and Briarcliff: http://northdruidhills.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/city-of-briarcliff-group-weve-raised-16000
Here’s a link to the proposed City of Tucker Initiative map: http://cityoftuckerinitiative.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-proposed-new-city-of-tucker-georgia.html
Holy moly, the proposed city of Stonecrest is quite large.
If they’re going for a land and revenue grab, why stop short of YDFM? That seems to be a pretty obvious target with no residents to add to schools.
Welcome to Decatur, Pin Ups!
Not again! Midway Woods went through this a couple of times, however, in hindsight I believe they were humoring the Families with kids over here. No way were they going to consider adding nearly 800 homes with no commercial or even potential commercial.
What will be interesting is Lakeside, Briarcliff and Tucker’s fight for what is pretty much the same turf. Lakeside appears to have the backing of the Republicians in the State house and the money, but I wonder if they have the votes? Tucker and Briarcliff, both included in Lakeside, would definitely vote against.
It will be interesting
deja vu all over again
http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2013/12/01/dunwoody-parents-organizing-new-group-lobby-city-school-systems-legislation/
If this effort passes the Legislature/voters, all bets on the Decatur Schools annexation issue are off, I predict. I would think once Dunwoody or Briarcliff/Tucker/Lakeside push to run their own schools, there would be little difference in the taxes…
Rancor in these unincorporated parts is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Go read what’s happening in Memphis/Shelby County if you want a taste of what Dekalb is in for.
There is going to be a huge fight over the Northlake Mall area, because without it none of those proposed cities have enough commercial property (though Tucker might if the big office/industrial parks on its east side are included).
Commercial activity occurs at Northlake Mall? Who knew?
Not so much the mall as the adjacent area. The Publix/TJMaxx shopping center is always packed, and there is also a Target and Best Buy very close by. There is also a fair amount of office space in the area. Northlake Festival has made a bit of a comeback, and I’ve heard the Kroger there is slated for remodeling.
Do you have any idea how much money that Golden Corral must bring in?
Seriously, do you? It must be obscene. (And what better addition to Decatur’s vibrant dining scene?)
The new cities can’t start school system. Forbidden by state law
New state law is being proposed and pushed by Dunwoody.
“New state law is being proposed and pushed by Dunwoody.”
Though it may well pass, it is going to be hugely controversial and invite numerous lawsuits.
I’m curious about the prohibition against the municipalities having their own school systems. How is this so? And, how do CSD and APS etc. exist (how are they different)?
They had their own systems before the constitution was amended.
Thanks. This makes sense. So the state constitution was amended to prohibit new municipalities statewide (those incorporated after the amendment) from establishing their own school systems? That essentially means establishing huge school districts as a result given the size of Georgia’s counties. I get the economic implications of wealthier cities being able to pull their property tax money away from the county, but large school districts are inherently more difficult to manage, IMHO. (I realize this is beyond the scope of the current discussion, but find it interesting.)
And a cursory internet search now tells me that Georgia has rather small counties compared to most other states. I still think countywide school districts as the norm is not good.
The counties are geographically small as a vestige of 19th century rural Georgia where the powers that be didn’t want to place undue burden on those who had to journey to the County Seat for their business. That’s why we have more counties than any state except Texas.
The parochialism continues to this day, with counties (and I include the Atlanta metro in this) refusing to establish any kind of joint services for fear of giving up some of their power and influence.
And, that’s also why we have counties as small as 2000 in total population (that’s right – for the entire county).
Which is 2,000? I thought Echols was the smallest with 4,000
According to the 2010 census, six counties had smaller populations than Echols (which had 4,034): Baker, Clay, Glascock, Webster, Quitman and Taliaferro (the smallest at 1,717).
georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/countypopulationrank.htm
Ah yes, Taliaferro County. That”s pronounced “Tall-ever” for those who didn’t know.
Consolidating costs was one of the considerations at the time. Big systems may not be as effective, but benefit from economic scale.
Better question is “why”? Why can’t we the people set up school systems as we see fit? Isn’t this a free country?
I suspect this is a legacy of integration, but I’d like to know more.
I believe costs were cited as a major factor when the ban was put in. The current proposal to amend it, though, only allows for new cities (from 2005) to create a school system. It’s a transparent attempt to allow certain wealthy communities to self-segregate (Milton, Dunwoody, Sandy Springs), even allowing for systems to be formed cross-county by adjacent cities (Dunwoody,Sandy Springs). Though it would be primarily economic segregation, it would also be de facto racial segregation to some extent, and would likely devastate already struggling communities like those in S.DeKalb.
Devastate how? By putting them into terrible school districts? I think they’re already there.
By leaving them in a struggling district, but with even less in the way of resources.
In light of the school system constitutional challenge, it probably would have been smarter strategy for Tucker, Lakeside, and Briarcliff to join forces and try to form one large city. That would have put all three of the areas in a far stronger position to form a new school system.
“In light of the school system constitutional challenge, it probably would have been smarter strategy for Tucker, Lakeside, and Briarcliff to join forces and try to form one large city.”
I’m not sure why they haven’t done that. From what I’ve gathered from reading and talking to people, the desire for a city of Tucker was pretty lukewarm. The new initiative is more of a response to the Lakeside proposal and the fear of being an isolated unincorporated area if Lakeside and/or Briarcliff incorporates.
No truth to the Tucker initiative being lukewarm! The Tucker community has managed itself much like a city for more than 120 years, and the question of cityhood has been visited in the past but there was no movement in that direction because of successful partnerships with the County. Given the current conditions in the County, Tucker citizens realized the time was right to move ahead with formal incorporation to ensure local control of essential quality of life issues. Also, Tucker has never discussed the desire for its own school system unlike Lakeside. No word on Briarcliff’s perspective on schools. The Lakeside City Alliance (LCA) has indicated it has no desire to join with either Tucker or Briarcliff citing the size of a combined city, however their map is clearly drawn to be include only those parts of both communities that are demographically and politically desirable.
Interestingly, the Lakeside bill was sponsored by Sen. Fran Millar (R) who does not represent the vast majority of the Lakeside map. It’s curious that he is expending so much effort on this when his constituents in Dunwoody – the largest group by far of his constituents – have pressing issues such as the school system bill that they need him to help lead. Many worry that his support for Lakeside will hurt his credibility with his fellow legislators in the school debate. And despite the categorization that Lakeside has Republican support in the legislature, there are members of the GOP who don’t want this cityhood fight in a compressed session during an election year.
For the most current information and maps regarding Tucker, visit http://www.tucker2014.com.
“Demographically and politically desirable”…
So that’s how you say “no Negroes” these days.
Lakeside tries to take the better parts and leaves the rest to fend for themselves. Briarcliff includes all those areas and still comes out as more viable than Lakeside (and uses natural borders). Also, Briarcliff and Tucker have had communication on a pretty consistent basis. Lakeside will talk to no one. Lakeside might pull something in the legislature but the residents dont support it and will not vote for it. There is also growing resentment about how Lakeside is trying to play this. I’d say Lakeside (right now) is the LEAST likely to form of the 3. I dont want to be in Decatur (doesnt mean I dont love ya’ll) but you gotta get a handle on that tax thing first. Plus, it always seems the ex looks much better when someone else is trying to date them (you already tried annexing…you didnt want to).
“Given the current conditions in the County, Tucker citizens realized the time was right to move ahead with formal incorporation to ensure local control of essential quality of life issues.”
Yes, but was there really much of a push for cityhood before the Lakeside proposal? I used to live there, and I don’t recall one.
There was a push several years ago. Not by residents, but by the various Tucker organizations. It was pretty heavily opposed (but had some strong support as well). The idea went dormant until Lakeside came aliong and greedily drew the borders on one of their early maps right up to the side door of Tucker High School so they could get the relatively wealthy Midvale and Livsey areas.
Decatur: We want business, not children.
“Decatur: We have enough children! More business, please.”
There, fixed it for you.
And if you don’t want to locate here, we’ll just have to force you into the City. For your own good, of course.
Trader Joes. you have been warned.
I lost track as to who is in each corner. Will this be a no holds barred, no time limit, no one left standing grudge match? However, kudos to the city for the strategic thinking. It’s good to have ‘em in our corner. (Uncertain if pun was intended or not.)
I’ll be in the Trackside corner. No kids allowed.
You don’t have to like our kids, but you do help pay for them while at trackside.
I welcome the annexation of additional parcels in to the C.O.D. Especially commercial properties, that would generate a great deal more tax revenue and take some of the burden off of the homeowners in the city who currently pay the majority percentage of the tax revenue to the city. The effective tax rate in the C.O.D. is very high compared to other municipalities in the state of GA and it’s one of three cities who are taxed on a 50% assessment.
Another way of looking at it is, I feel we are one of the few places where we get what we pay for. Yes, the taxes are high. But we live in a community of outstanding schools, a caring and responsive police department, city leaders who try hard to listen to their constituents and invite us to be part of their strategic planning, and a vibrant downtown area that has become a destination place for many outside of the city.
Do we have some issues and disagreements? Is everything completely hunky-dory? No, of course not. And I also would like to see a higher commercial tax base. But I never feel cheated when I pay those high property taxes.
“it’s one of three cities who are taxed on a 50% assessment.”
What are the other two?
The City of Briarcliff expects to be good neighbors to all cities in the area. We have made an absolute statement that we have no intention of cherry-picking commercial property. Our borders are designed to include all area not part of any existing city.
On the other hand, we hope that other cities will also not cherry-pick. Any city that needs additional commercial property to support the addition of new residents (like Chamblee just did) will find that we understand. We have a harder time understanding the equity of cities trying to find all the commercial property they can, simply to give themselves more tax revenue. That has the effect of hurting the people they are excluding.
http://northdruidhills.patch.com/blogs/city-of-briarcliff
So why is it that it’s OK for a NEW city to optimize its commercial/residential ratio, but not for a 191 year old city to do the same?
It’s not o.k. Decatur and some others are taking a “Beggar thy neighbor” approach. This is a zero-sum game—what Decatur gains, others loose.
But, the opposite isnt’ true?
I see your argument, but I’d say because in the case of Decatur/Bike South strip, and over that way, I’d imagine all these businesses consciously make the decision to not be part of Decatur specifically when they set up shop. If a new city comes along,everything will be up for a vote, in the legislature, and then again with citizens, and presumably business owners. Everyone will at least have been heard throughout the long process of creating a city and then at the ballot box, giving the process some sort of legitimacy. The Decatur way, no one has a say in anything that’s about to happen.
“presumably business owners”
Generally, unless the enabling legislation specifically provides, commercial properties don’t get a vote.
Yes, I know that. I was making the presumption that business owners/employees would live near their establishments, or in the new city borders somewhere since the swath is quite large at least in comparison to Decatur. But it’s just a presumption, there are so many over there, and I really don’t know.
That’s a reasonable point about annexation versus new incorporation. It would make sense to me to allow business owners to vote on annexation whether they live in the proposed annex or not.
Perhaps because Decatur is wildly thriving and the new cities are not even off the ground?
TeeRuss:
The City of Briarcliff has been disparaged by the Lakeside City organization because it doesn’t have enough commercial property to support its population. The commercial and industrial tax base of Briarcliff is about 10% of its total property.
That doesn’t bother us, because we know we can make this work. But the commercial base is small enough that we would hope that neighboring cities wouldn’t just grab commercial area; that has the effect of making it harder to finance the rest of central DeKalb. Any city that takes a 9 to 1 ratio of residential to commercial will cause no harm to the surrounding area.
Is this the voice of my new Briarcliffian overlord?
Decatur has a very viable downtown with a MARTA station. It is one of the few walkable communities in metro Atlanta where a household could live without a car. It has significant capacity to redelvelop and increase its tax base without poaching DeKalb County or future cities. The annexation plan is “grabbing while the grabbing is good.” I don’t believe it reflects the values of the citizens.
Assuming (and yes, it’s a big assumption) that *some* city (be they new or existing) is going to lay claim to these properties, what’s wrong with Decatur throwing their hat in the ring? Much of the area we’re looking at includes what could one day be a light rail line connecting Emory with the Avondale MARTA station, passing through the general Suburban Plaza area along the way. Do you really trust a currently non-existent entity, with no experience in land planning, or worse, DeKalb County, to foster the level of transit-oriented development needed to add value to the entire north side of Decatur?
I don’t. If those areas are going to fall to someone, I’d prefer it be us. To me, attempting to achieve and maintain a standard of sound multi-modal development in proximity to our residents does reflect our values.
It would be nice for Decatur to be a light-rail hub somewhere way down the road, but honestly, this whole “we may get light-rail so we need to annex everything touching us” is seems far-fetched. Being able to control development is a good thing and would obviously be a positive side effect, but that’s not what this is about right this second. Decatur needs money because the schools are having some growing pains, Suburban will bring taxes. Why do the apologists not feel OK just saying that? Trying to disguise it or not just straight up say the motive, is curious to me.
It may not be what this is about for you, but it is what it’s about for me. I’m not especially interested in an arbitrary land grab but if the areas in question are poised to be consumed by some emerging municipality then yes, I think it’s critical to move on it. Once in another city’s possession, we lose any future option.
You’re right that, underlying all perspectives, it’s a matter of economics. I’m just more interested in positioning ourselves for better development and solid economic returns in the long term rather than fixated on the short term. As Warren said, we have significant redevelopment opportunities right downtown to address our current commercial deficits.
I would agree that DeKalb’s overall planning and zoning performance is deficient. The success or failure of Dekalb’s planning has largely been dependent upon the involvement of the citizens around the planning area. Brookhaven along Dresden Drive and Emory Village are examples within DeKalb of good local plannng that support walkable mixed use communities. However development around Perimeter is largely the result of DeKalb’s planning and zoning with improvements from the CID. The Brookhaven Mata station area has been reasonably planned, but MARTA TOD policies have held back development in the immediate viscinity of the station. Planning around the Kensington and Indian Creek station will support mixed use developmet. So it is premature to throw DeKalb under the bus or light rail for future planning around the the potential Clifton rail line. DeKalb is kicking off an LCI study that will help dtermine the areas future. Decatur and Avondale have not done much to develop the Avondale and East Lake stations.
“Decatur and Avondale have not done much to develop the Avondale and East Lake stations.”
FWIW, the East Decatur Station project, which involves (or involved) the city, MARTA, the housing authority, and private development interests, has been in the works, slowly moving forward, for a decade now. Several hundred apartment units (guesstimate) in proximity to the station are poised to break ground in 2014. Once fully built out, the area promises to be one of the metro’s most diverse TODs and definitely one of Decatur’s funkier neighborhoods.
When the East Lake station was built a large development was planned but was shot down by strenuous opposition from the Lenox Place neighborhood.
That was probably at least 30 years ago, right? I’ll bet there would be a different reaction now.
Yes East Decatur Station is another excellent opportunity for Decatur to develop and increase its tax base besides annexing areas that historically developed outside the Decatur sphere of influence. Others opportunities are Church St, Trinity, McDonough and Commerce. Toco Hill, North DeKalb Mall, Lawrenceville hwy, Suburban Plaza and Emory Commons are parts of other communities, not Decatur.
“Once fully built out, the area promises to be one of the metro’s most diverse TODs and definitely one of Decatur’s funkier neighborhoods.”
Not that I’m disputing this, but what makes you think so?
Just from the perspective of, hey, how many of our neighborhoods have residences, breweries, a distillery, a glass blower, a dude who builds custom amps, a boxing gym, a farm and, of course, huge inflatables(!), along with more usual stuff like a school, pub, church and whatnot (and I’m probably leaving out a number of interesting things)? Funkier from the sense of having a lot of diversity in stuff going on.
Note that I’m referring to the East Decatur Station neighborhood in the big sense, not just the apartments around the Marta station. The full area is actually bordered by College, Katie Kerr and Columbia, so it’s a sizable chunk of the city.
You forgot the used car lot and the used-to-be-kinda-sketchy gas station and the Ace Hardware that sells screws by the piece!
All: I apologize in advance if you think I’m hijacking the thread; that’s not my intention. I live by the East Lake station, so obviously follow this closely, as it seems like a no-brainer. From this Marta TOD planning document, the East Lake station actually scored 9th in priority for development, but was replaced by the Kensington Station due to ease of development (single landowner, etc.). You can see the priority list on slide 20 and the footnote on 21, notated by an asterisk describing why the East Lake station was passed over for Kensington for the time being.
http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/About_MARTA/Planning_and_Projects/TOD_and_Real_Estate/MARTA%20Five%20Year%20TOD%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf
For LOTS of other information describing their near term and long term plans, you can peruse multiple documents. It takes a while, but is well worth the read.
http://www.itsmarta.com/TOD-real-estate.aspx
Given the popularity of living on the East Side, the TOD being actively planned over the next 2 years around the King Memorial, Candler Park, and Avondale stations, long term plans for the Kensington station, the new sciences building being built on the GSU campus next to its namesake station, the recently announced 275 (?!) apartment mixed-use development by Greystone on the Reynoldstown side of the Inman Park station, and keeping the Indian Creek station as a commuter station (for now), that only leaves the northside parking lot at the Inman Park station and the East Lake station for development. That’s not even considering development on other lines. Obviously, successful planning and development will be paramount to gaining buy-in and continuing development, but if Keith Parker can continue to improve things like he has the last year, it seems more like a question of when, not if.
Scott: I understand what you’re getting at regarding the Clifton Corridor. That would fall under the transportation / infrastructure facet of the region’s long term strategic initiatives and many probably aren’t considering that aspect / benefit right now, even though it is just as important as the near-term gains. If the city IS interested in getting more involved with transportation planning (which they should be), one area they should start with is coordinating with the Marta to extend the green line to the Avondale station. Given the pending development there, multiple mixed-use developments coming in downtown Decatur, the existing platform capacity for 4 trains, and the fact that they are maintained at the Avondale Yard anyway, it seems like a no-brainer; besides alleviating cramped conditions on the trains, it would most definitely win back many choice riders. My 2 cents.
“significant capacity to redevelop and increase its tax base”
Decatur has a lower proportion of commercial to residential assessment than just about anywhere around and the problem is that is very little opportunity to increase the commercial tax base as opposed to the residential. Commercial pays a larger proportion of the freight compared to the services that need to be provided (no children live in a restaurant, for instance).
While I agree with Scott, we do, Steve, have the ability to add a much greater amount of commercial space (including rental apartments) in our downtown area by redeveloping under utilized land and by increasing density.
” the ability to add a much greater amount of commercial space (including rental apartments) in our downtown area ”
That, at least, is well under way.
And as the residential development continues, there will be more support for more walkable commercial options, which will make the area even more attractive for 21st century office users. More support for walkable retail serving nearby residents will eliminate the need for as much parking, which will open up land parcels for future commercial development. All of this will help to grow the commercial tax base and we can do it right here, right now, without annexation.
Part of the issue with the Decatur and Avondale annexation efforts is that they want to do it without a referendum. They want the legislature to give it to them. Both cities know that when they have asked people, they get turned down.
If you want to annex someone who’s currently not in the city, it’s not relevant what the people in the city think; it’s relevant what the people (the targets) outside the city want. If they don’t want to be part of Decatur or Avondale, the issue should be closed.
To paraphrase Rep Buzz Brockway: “The legislature should not be in the business of deciding whether someone should be added to a city; it’s up to those people whether they want to be in.”
A referendum is required by state law for residents; it is not required for commercial property. The previous discussion a few years back on Decatur annexation included a residential referendum.
Steve: A city can annex a contiguous commercial property individually if the owner of the property requests it (see recent events at Century Center), with no referendum. There are some additional provisions that allow for groups of commercial property to be annexed if there’s a majority who want it, and the “no votes” would be islands. If there are residences involved, typically it requires a referendum.
Neither Decatur nor Avondale Estates has had any success getting businesses to petition to annex to the city. So the only way for the city to grab them is by legislative fiat. Ain’t gonna happen.
The state legislature can do whatever they want in an individual situation. However, this legislature has said that they don’t want to play god. Let the people/businesses decide for themselves where they want to be.
Didn’t Avondale annex the commercial properties along College Avenue without any say-so from the owners?
The annexation of commercial owners IS a grab for revenue! Plain and simple. Every city wants commercial for the tax base. Hardly any want residential areas, because they do not pay the cost of services! I have been involved in fighting an attempted annexation. We were successful, but the potential targets have to win every time and the city only has to win once. I own several commercial properties in unincorporated DeKalb. I have NO problems with DeKalb county or the administration of land use. The status quo is fine with me.
However, if several cities want my property, I know the criteria I will use for annexation. First, zoning and land use issues are paramount. Next, administration of codes (read meddling with longtime uses to make it difficult to continue). Third, taxes, taxes, taxes. Exactly, what do these cities want from me and what does it cost? In general, I oppose new cities. Reasoning is that it is another layer of government that intrudes and must be fed.
I have said before, I know why you want me! I need to decide why I want you!