Dear Houston: Fish or Cut Bait on Suburbs

[IronTiger]

Now, if I get any facts wrong on this, please feel free to correct me, but I think something needs to be done with the suburbs. No matter what you feel, sprawl definitely has negative effects, and the suburbs are sprawling at a cancerous rate. But the problem is that the suburbs have no real "city" to take control and point growth at a sustainable and planned rate.

The ETJ of Houston prevents places like Katy from expanding or Cypress from incorporating, but Houston won't annex the suburbs because that will force responsibility like maintaining streets, and change (or at least dilute) the political balance to favor suburbanites (mass transit would be hurt under that). Incorporation of the suburbs would tend to hem in Houston's boundaries and they would lose certain tax benefits from the suburbs (namely commercial buildings), including the "protection money" tax on The Woodlands.

I think that for the good of the suburbs, Houston needs to take action by either allowing them to incorporate or annexing them. What do you think, if anything, should be done on this issue?

[ArchFan]

I agree with your general sentiment.  I grew up in Houston in the 50-60s and one persistent mantra I heard was "we don't want to be hemmed in by smaller cities like Dallas" and (somehow by extension) wind up like one of those decaying rust-belt cities.  Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I don't see that Dallas has suffered by being surrounded by smaller incorporated cities.  To the contrary, I think it is better off because the City of Dallas did not overextend itself.

 

In contrast, I think that the CoH has assumed responsibility for more land area that it has been able to properly take care of.  It seems to me that Houston is suffering from this:  once a political entity gets so large that the sense of community within it diminishes, public apathy increases and fewer talented and committed people run for office and get elected.  In the extreme, more self-serving crooks and/or incompetent people run and get elected, due to the lack of public scrutiny.  In that class of people, I would also have to include single-issue ideologues who are willing to sacrifice the greater good to further their pet cause.

 

So, I would favor letting suburban communities within Houston's ETJ incorporate.  However, please also remember that Metro is a separate entity from the CoH, so it's reach would not expand even if Houston annexed those communities.

 

 

[IronTiger]

I agree with your general sentiment.  I grew up in Houston in the 50-60s and one persistent mantra I heard was "we don't want to be hemmed in by smaller cities like Dallas" and (somehow by extension) wind up like one of those decaying rust-belt cities.  Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I don't see that Dallas has suffered by being surrounded by smaller incorporated cities.  To the contrary, I think it is better off because the City of Dallas did not overextend itself.

 

In contrast, I think that the CoH has assumed responsibility for more land area that it has been able to properly take care of.  It seems to me that Houston is suffering from this:  once a political entity gets so large that the sense of community within it diminishes, public apathy increases and fewer talented and committed people run for office and get elected.  In the extreme, more self-serving crooks and/or incompetent people run and get elected, due to the lack of public scrutiny.  In that class of people, I would also have to include single-issue ideologues who are willing to sacrifice the greater good to further their pet cause.

 

So, I would favor letting suburban communities within Houston's ETJ incorporate.  However, please also remember that Metro is a separate entity from the CoH, so it's reach would not expand even if Houston annexed those communities.

The city doesn't directly control METRO, but the elected officials can decide who goes and who stays in METRO, and thus has influence. To illustrate, Whitmire's METRO was gung-ho on the whole monorail idea, while Lanier's METRO killed it. Whether or not who was right isn't for this topic, the point is elected officials DO influence METRO and can try to expand or shrink power as they see fit. I'm not saying that Houston should or shouldn't annex the suburbs, but the point of the topic is I think it's a bad idea to do nothing, hence they should fish (annex!) or cut bait (let them incorporate). In either case, Houston will still hold the lion's share of influence and power and will still keep what it has (barring de-annexation).

[Montrose1100]

I wouldn't have a problem if the city expanded its "commercial" boundaries, like annexing the feeder roads of the freeways to get that sweet commercial tax. However, it's beyond what the city should annex now as far as suburbs. Development will happen along the grand parkway and in the suburbs to crest more satelite cities and employment centers. There is nothing to be done about this. There are no boundaries to keep this from happening.

I think it's good Houston has other employment centers, that way we don't have every freeway looking like I-10 already. Densification and eventual mass transit will help curb our fate once the suburbs start expanding into the exurbs. People's attitudes are changing. Traffic comes up quite a bit in conversation and I hear people say they would gladly ride a train if there was one. Now don't get started on the rail vs bus thing, I'm using their words not mine.

[Houston19514]

Now, if I get any facts wrong on this, please feel free to correct me, but I think something needs to be done with the suburbs. No matter what you feel, sprawl definitely has negative effects, and the suburbs are sprawling at a cancerous rate. But the problem is that the suburbs have no real "city" to take control and point growth at a sustainable and planned rate.

The ETJ of Houston prevents places like Katy from expanding or Cypress from incorporating, but Houston won't annex the suburbs because that will force responsibility like maintaining streets, and change (or at least dilute) the political balance to favor suburbanites (mass transit would be hurt under that). Incorporation of the suburbs would tend to hem in Houston's boundaries and they would lose certain tax benefits from the suburbs (namely commercial buildings), including the "protection money" tax on The Woodlands.

I think that for the good of the suburbs, Houston needs to take action by either allowing them to incorporate or annexing them. What do you think, if anything, should be done on this issue?

 

Let's say Houston gives up its ETJ and all the suburban areas are allowed to incorporate.  How would that limit sprawl?  Note that cities that have developed along the lines you propose (Dallas and Atlanta come to mind) have more sprawl than Houston.

 

[IronTiger]

I wouldn't have a problem if the city expanded its "commercial" boundaries, like annexing the feeder roads of the freeways to get that sweet commercial tax. However, it's beyond what the city should annex now as far as suburbs. Development will happen along the grand parkway and in the suburbs to crest more satelite cities and employment centers. There is nothing to be done about this. There are no boundaries to keep this from happening.

Functionally, they already do. I've seen some annexation maps of Houston and that's what's marked (such as that Target-anchored center in Cypress built about a decade ago, you know, on 290)--it isn't technically part of Houston but it is to get that tax money. While that's fine for the time being (because where else would it go?), it's kind of cheap. Personally, I think that in those cases, there should be some sort of special district, where some tax money would go to the new suburb but Houston gets to keep others (METRO money, for instance).

I think it's good Houston has other employment centers, that way we don't have every freeway looking like I-10 already. Densification and eventual mass transit will help curb our fate once the suburbs start expanding into the exurbs. People's attitudes are changing. Traffic comes up quite a bit in conversation and I hear people say they would gladly ride a train if there was one. Now don't get started on the rail vs bus thing, I'm using their words not mine.

I'm not sure why Interstate 10 became a lightning rod for new development, even back in the 1980s it was getting way more developed in terms of big amenities miles out of downtown. Not to the extent of today, of course, but still something to keep in mind.

As for mass transit, there's no reason why any potential suburbs couldn't work together on Houston on a system-wide mass transit plan. It's what kept DART working.

Let's say Houston gives up its ETJ and all the suburban areas are allowed to incorporate. How would that limit sprawl? Note that cities that have developed along the lines you propose (Dallas and Atlanta come to mind) have more sprawl than Houston.

Good point, but there is a BIG difference between planned sprawl and unplanned sprawl. If you have good leadership, you could build a competent system of roads and zoned areas--part of the huge sprawl problem is not so much sprawl but the fact that they have no planning whatsoever except for developers, and thus roads are either former rural roads that have been widened, or roads that were clearly meant to be subdivision collector roads trying to be forced into major throughfares (as an example, look at the Kirby Road segments between Beltway 8 and the "real" ending of the road.

By incorporating, they have a chance to get real leadership that could develop a workable master plan and better planning. Trying to stop sprawl is a fool's game, and it often ends up just overvaluing existing property values or potentially wrecking the local economy, but you can do something about bunches of cul-de-sacs built onto each other.

[Houston19514]

Good point, but there is a BIG difference between planned sprawl and unplanned sprawl. If you have good leadership, you could build a competent system of roads and zoned areas--part of the huge sprawl problem is not so much sprawl but the fact that they have no planning whatsoever except for developers, and thus roads are either former rural roads that have been widened, or roads that were clearly meant to be subdivision collector roads trying to be forced into major throughfares (as an example, look at the Kirby Road segments between Beltway 8 and the "real" ending of the road.

By incorporating, they have a chance to get real leadership that could develop a workable master plan and better planning. Trying to stop sprawl is a fool's game, and it often ends up just overvaluing existing property values or potentially wrecking the local economy, but you can do something about bunches of cul-de-sacs built onto each other.

 

It is just not true to say that there is no planning whatsoever.  Take a look at the HGAC website and their 2035 Mobility Plans for the metropolitan area.

 

I don't see how having a bunch of independent municipalities is going to provide us with better metro mobility planning.  Is there evidence from other metro areas that having a bunch of independent municipalities provides better transportation planning and infrastructure? 

[IronTiger]

It is just not true to say that there is no planning whatsoever.  Take a look at the HGAC website and their 2035 Mobility Plans for the metropolitan area.

 

I don't see how having a bunch of independent municipalities is going to provide us with better metro mobility planning.  Is there evidence from other metro areas that having a bunch of independent municipalities provides better transportation planning and infrastructure?

I think you're confusing two different issues. The suburbs need to have their own leadership and make decisions for their community instead of letting subdivisions run amuck. As for "metro mobility" I assume you mean mass transit, and in that case, it was originally brought up because if the suburbs were annexed, a political shift would occur to favor suburban interests, and some top-down changes would likely mean that mass transit might be focused more toward linking suburbs (and letting inner-transportation stagnate) or do the Culberson method of trying to starve it. That's an argument for NOT annexing the 'burbs, but they do need SOME sort of leadership beyond Harris County.

[Houston19514]

I think you're confusing two different issues. The suburbs need to have their own leadership and make decisions for their community instead of letting subdivisions run amuck. As for "metro mobility" I assume you mean mass transit, and in that case, it was originally brought up because if the suburbs were annexed, a political shift would occur to favor suburban interests, and some top-down changes would likely mean that mass transit might be focused more toward linking suburbs (and letting inner-transportation stagnate) or do the Culberson method of trying to starve it. That's an argument for NOT annexing the 'burbs, but they do need SOME sort of leadership beyond Harris County.

 

How does having a group of suburbs running amuck help anything compared to a group of subdivisions running amuck?

 

No, I was not referring to mass transit.  Mobility is about much more than just mass transit.  By metro mobility, I was referring to mobility planning on a metropolitan-wide basis, which does occur.  The last thing we need is dozens of separate little fiefdoms each making their own independent transportation plans.

 

I ask again,  is there evidence from other metro areas that having a bunch of independent municipalities provides better transportation planning and infrastructure?

[IronTiger]

Of course they'll still be regional systems and chances to work together, but your "fiefdoms" is clearly based on the assumption that it will be just like Dallas, with suburbs stacked onto suburbs. Problem is, the ETJ prevents the existing suburbs from growing at all. For instance, if Katy, TX was allowed to grow, then it would probably annex Cinco Ranch, with Katy growing, Richmond growing, Cypress and The Woodlands being incorporated, etc.

Do you really think places like New Territory would incorporate themselves?

OK, let me put it this way--do places like Bellaire and West University Place disrupt transportation planning and infrastructure like you think the fringe suburbs would?

[Houston19514]

Of course they'll still be regional systems and chances to work together, but your "fiefdoms" is clearly based on the assumption that it will be just like Dallas, with suburbs stacked onto suburbs. Problem is, the ETJ prevents the existing suburbs from growing at all. For instance, if Katy, TX was allowed to grow, then it would probably annex Cinco Ranch, with Katy growing, Richmond growing, Cypress and The Woodlands being incorporated, etc.

Do you really think places like New Territory would incorporate themselves?

OK, let me put it this way--do places like Bellaire and West University Place disrupt transportation planning and infrastructure like you think the fringe suburbs would?

 

The question is not whether incorporated suburbs will disrupt transportation planning.  The question is whether they will do anything to enhance it, which is your claim.  Nothing you have said or shown us gives us any reason whatsoever to think there would be better transportation planning, either locally or regionally, due to allowing the ETJs to incorporate or be annexed into already-existing suburbs.

[IronTiger]

The question is not whether incorporated suburbs will disrupt transportation planning. The question is whether they will do anything to enhance it, which is your claim. Nothing you have said or shown us gives us any reason whatsoever to think there would be better transportation planning, either locally or regionally, due to allowing the ETJs to incorporate or be annexed into already-existing suburbs.

If nothing exists, nothing will be done.

If incorporation exists, there's at least a CHANCE that something could be done.

[Houston19514]

If nothing exists, nothing will be done.

If incorporation exists, there's at least a CHANCE that something could be done.

False premise. It is not the case that currently "nothing exists"

Can you perhaps give me some examples of transportation infrastructure problems that have been caused by the failure to have incorporated suburbs rather than unincorporated ETJ?

I am trying to understand what problem you are seeking to address.

[IronTiger]

False premise. It is not the case that currently "nothing exists"

Can you perhaps give me some examples of transportation infrastructure problems that have been caused by the failure to have incorporated suburbs rather than unincorporated ETJ?

I am trying to understand what problem you are seeking to address.

Well, transportation infrastructure and planning is a small component of the functions of a real city. Since you seem to be against the ideas of "fiefdoms", you seem to be against the idea of annexation by suburbs or incorporations, therefore the idea of annexation seems to be in your favor. The ETJ allows the city to enact certain rules, possible taxes disguised as "fees", and to take that commercial tax. However, the ETJ won't allow people to vote in city elections, and so forth.

Therefore, it would make sense to annex the suburbs, and we can have things like Cinco Ranch Super Neighborhood 91. But that would mean the city would have to repair roads and allow voting.

It would seem you want to hold the ETJ in place, because it gives the city lots of benefits without allowing any representation by the people living there.

[Houston19514]

Well, transportation infrastructure and planning is a small component of the functions of a real city. Since you seem to be against the ideas of "fiefdoms", you seem to be against the idea of annexation by suburbs or incorporations, therefore the idea of annexation seems to be in your favor. The ETJ allows the city to enact certain rules, possible taxes disguised as "fees", and to take that commercial tax. However, the ETJ won't allow people to vote in city elections, and so forth.

Therefore, it would make sense to annex the suburbs, and we can have things like Cinco Ranch Super Neighborhood 91. But that would mean the city would have to repair roads and allow voting.

It would seem you want to hold the ETJ in place, because it gives the city lots of benefits without allowing any representation by the people living there.

 

I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding ETJ vs. suburbs vs incorporation of the ETJs by Houston.  You started a thread calling for change to alleviate some perceived failing of the current arrangement.  I'm still trying to figure out what the issue is that you think will be resolved by incorporating the ETJs.