To Annex Or Not To Annex The Woodlands

[VicMan]

I know there's talk of Houston annexing the woodlands, but can Conroe do it, too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone earlier said that Conroe can't do it because Houston set most of the Woodlands as an ETJ.

[Casual Observer]

I wish Houston would concentrate on getting everything inside the belt first, and on the southwest side, everything inside highway 6 first. Then Houston can worry about the Woodlands. Furthermore, if I were the Woodland's, I'd have incorporated myself by now to keep the "tax-wolves" away.

[RedScare]

The City of Houston's stated policy is that it plans no large annexations in the forseeable future.

Interestingly, George Mitchell, when designing The Woodlands, always intended it to become a part of Houston. I don't know what specs Crescent uses now, but the original Woodlands was built to COH specs. Being inside the ETJ, it should be COH spec now, as well.

Mitchell has been quoted as lamenting the anti-Houston rhetoric coming from Woodlands residents, since he planned on it being annexed. I realize this means little, since it is the residents' property now, but I find it interesting.

On a personal note, I used to be a fan of large annexations, but after Kingwood/Clear Lake, I changed my mind. There is a different mindset to the residents of these communities that is often at odds with the best interests of the city dwellers. After all, most moved to these communities to enjoy less city oversight and governance. They often oppose any city spending, other than roads and police. City dwellers generally see the value of spending a little money on quality of life, such as libraries, pools, and other intangibles. By bringing them back in, they dilute the vote of the city voters.

Houston, at 633 sq miles, is big enough to grow. It doesn't need to annex people that don't want to be here. That's why they moved in the first place.

[VicMan]

That reminds me, why haven't Spring, Klein, and Cypress incorporated yet?

[RedScare]

ETJ...they cannot incorporate without Houston's permission.

[Casual Observer]

You bring up a good point. I could name at least 10 edge communities that if they were a suburb to any other city would have incorporated by now. I wonder why the reluctance here in Houston.

Here's a few that over the last 50 years I think should have incorporated:

• Sharpstown
  
• Clearlake
  
• Kingwood
  
• Champions
  
• Willowbrook
  
• Copperfield
  
• Misson Bend/Glen
  
• Oakforest
  
• Greenspoint
  
• Cinco Ranch
  

I'm sure there are more, but these are just the ones that when I pass through I wonder "why?", or rather "why not?".

[MidtownCoog]

"why?", or rather "why not?".

$$$

Police, Fire, Water, etc. cost money.

[ricco67]

One of the reasons for the odd way they annexed Willowbrook mall is so that they would be able to get the most tax dollars without having "too many" people to provide "services" to.

That was over 10 years ago, since then the area has grown since then.

Annexation, I'm afraid, is the way to keep us from being like NYC and Chicago; both of which are landlocked with increasing land prices.

Ricco

[Casual Observer]

I'm not saying that I agree with annexation, especially some of Houston's past tactics, I'm just wondering if neighborhoods like Willowbrook, Kingwood, or Clearlake saw the writing on the wall - or if the city swept in like a thief in the night.

If they did know(?), then maybe they could have done something(?).

[bachanon]

being a woodlands' resident, it would be nice to know how, if any, things have changed for kingwoods residents.

will the city of houston use emanent (sp?) domain to claim the wooded buffers between neighborhoods and roadways in order to widen the roadways? are police/ems response times slower/faster? what exactly can the city do better than we already have?

can we partner with the city for mass transit rather than hope they send something our way?

as much as i admire george mitchell, i can not see the benefits of being annexed.

[RedScare]

If The Woodlands were annexed, it would have no effect on transit options, since the city ceded that responsibility to Metro when it was created. Usually, the city contracts with entities to provide, initially, those services that it cannot immediately provide. Therefore, the city would contract with TWFD to provide fire/ems until the city can adequately provide that service. Same for gaebage pickup. It normally puts its own cops out there, though. The neighborhood could contract additional security if it desired, though, as River Oaks does.

Since the city takes over water/sewer service, the most immediate benefit you would see is a reduction in taxes, since the city would be paying the bonds. This is also the biggest reason the city waits to annex. It does not want the debt, only the revenue.

[Casual Observer]

The county provides sheriff deputies as law enforcement correct? If so, that could easily be swapped out with HPD. Also, since its Montgomery county, I'm sure a deal would have to be worked out for M.C. Sheriff Deputies to be allowed shared jurisdiction over the annexed areas.

As for Fire & EMS, someone stated on here a while back that those guys are in a firefighter's union, so I wonder how the city would get around that? In Kingwood, they were all volunteer, so the city just commendeered their stations and put HFD trucks & personnel in their place. I also know that there were strict guidelines put on the FIRE/EMS and HPD personnel there about response times and minimum staffing. So I'm sure thats something else the Woodlands would demand.

I don't agree with it, as I think Houston has more than enough problems south of the north belt. I think we should be focusing on everything inside the belt, before we worry about more stuff outside the belt.

[bruce_oneal]

i've heard that in a few years many of these outlying areas that surround the city, but are not incorporated under HOUSTON are going to have water problems. as i understand, houston has just about ALL the above-ground water rights and many of these places exist on ground water. well, when that starts running out, who do you think they are going to call?

[Casual Observer]

ghostbusters?

[HtownKid]

Woah!! I thought Woodlands was its own city this whole time. Only in Houston would an area that big be unincorprated. So they have no mayor? an who gets to be on the Woodlands Mangement Board do they work like a city council?

So Casual Observer are all those areas you listed a part of COH now? Hell is Katy incorprated??? lol what about Cypress?

Can someone explain how these MUDS work im really confused on these.

Also what is the name of that really fancy stripmall/shopping center down the highway from Woodlands Mall it looks very inspired Arabian Architecture anyone have pictures of it that has to be the most beautiful stripmall I have ever seen.

Also is it me or is development slow to the south down 288 (Pearland)you think with its close proximity to downtown its be completely developed

[Casual Observer]

To the question you asked of me: no.

[pineda]

Also what is the name of that really fancy stripmall/shopping center down the highway from Woodlands Mall it looks very inspired Arabian Architecture anyone have pictures of it that has to be the most beautiful stripmall I have ever seen.

Portofino Shopping Center.

[VicMan]

"Hell is Katy incorprated??? lol what about Cypress?"

Katy's incorporated and Cypress isn't.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I still get a chuckle that Conroe has expanded its boundaries to where it tickles the northernmost border of The Woodlands. Conroe's borders now extend south of FM 1488 along I-45, then west for about a mile.

Hence even without annexing The Woodlands, Conroe could see a population swell in 20 years due to so much available and developable land just outside The Woodlands boundaries. There are already at least a half dozen smaller developments surrounding the north side of The Woodlands that have sprung up in the last 5 years. Imagine another 20?

Meanwhile, I think COH would annex Spring before The Woodlands--or at least part of it.

[pineda]

Spring is heavily residential and light on commercial/industrial. Hence, I don't think that makes it particularly attractive for annexation purposes. Also, did you know that the Klein ISD (within the Spring area) is a recipient of the "Robin Hood" plan, not a donor? People view Spring as a wealthy school district, but apparently it is not because of all the residential rooftops and low commercial business developments.

[kjb434]

HtownKid,

read earlier posts in this thread about MUD.

MUD's are a district established by the TCEQ given the responsibility of providing water and sewage treatment. The taxes they collect (often higher than the city) pay for the water, sewage, storm sewers, streets and anything part of the public domain. The roads and storm sewers are handed off to the county when they are paid for.

This issue with water in the MUDs is that many of them get there water from the ground. Currently a 30 year plan is in effect to gradually remove these districts onto a surface water source (Lake Houston). Large pipelines are being designed and constructed to carry the water all over north Harris county.

Using surface water will slow down the subsidence issues being seen.

****

Katy proper is a small incorporated area that lies in Harris, Fort Bend, and Waller Counties. Much of what we think of as Katy (grand parkway, fry, mason, cinco ranch) is unicoporated. Much of the suburbs on the West, North of Houston are unicorporated.

The city will have to notify these residents of annexation, then a three year protest period begins. If the residents do not decide against this, they can be annexed into the city.

[pineda]

the options for the woodlands

[kjb434]

very interesting read.

with all that coordination you would think it is already a city.

[LTAWACS]

ghostbusters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually chuckled when I read that.

[bruce_oneal]

I actually chuckled when I read that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it was kinda funny...

[bachanon]

i was reading "the woodlands, an inside story of creating a better hometown" by roger galatas (published by the urban land institute) this morning and came across the following: speaking of george mitchell's desire for the woodlands to be annexed.... "Mitchell had two reasons for seeking the city of Houston's embrace. One was altruistic, the other very practical. The primary reason Mitchell started The Woodlands was his fear that central cities were being drained of their tax bases by the movement of affluent residents to suburbia and outside city limits. He wanted The Woodlands to be part of Houston's solution, not part of it's problem. Thus Mitchell envisioned that Houston would eventually annex The Woodlands. The practical reason was the experience of other large developers who saw the early residents of their projects incorporate, then stymie further expansion efforts by the developer. It's called the drawbridge mentality. I like it the way it is. Let's pull up the drawbridge and not allow others to move in."

i wonder if mr. mitchell had any idea that major corporations would be moving their headquarters here? i wonder if he considered that the woodlands might become so "disneyfied" (for lack of a better word)?

as much as i love the woodlands and it's original ideals, i'm dismayed to see the lack of concern by woodlands' residents about the concepts that created this community.

Edited October 30, 2005 by bachanon

[RedScare]

I believe Mitchell did envision corporate offices in the Woodlands, hence the large sect of land set aside for the mall and surrounding businesses. This part of the Woodlands likely fit in well with his plan.

As to your second point, Mitchell has, on many occasions, lamented the type of residents it seems to attract nowadays, though he puts it in more graceful terms. Some of it should have been forseen, as in "white flight", for lack of a better term, is not normally comprised of liberals, or even social moderates. The evangelical component, on the other hand, probably would not have been forseen, as this phenomenon is much more recent, not gaining heavy traction until the last 10 years.

As for the developers maximizing profit by squeezing ever larger homes on ever smaller lots....well, that's why Mitchell is so revered....few developers existed prior to Mitchell with his foresight, and fewer still exist today.

[bachanon]

Here is an update on the progress of the future of governance of The Woodlands.

Residents speak out on future governance options for The Woodlands

By: Burton Speakman, Villager staff11/16/2005

Residents were given their first opportunity to comment on options regarding future governance of the master-planned community during four scheduled public meetings.

The options were presented in four main areas: status quo, annexation, incorporation and The Woodlands solution (a possibility that has not been identified). These possibilities were created by the Governance Steering Committee, a group of appointed representatives created to represent The Woodlands stakeholders.

Link

[RedScare]

$1.04 Tax Rate! Woodlands residents ought to be BEGGING Houston to annex them to get at our $0.645 tax rate....and Houstonians ought to be telling them No.

As a Houstonian, I have no problem with the status quo, since Woodlands residents are paying us to leave them alone. However, if the issue became serious, I would be leery of annexing the Woodlands. Frankly, I don't think Woodlands/Houston voters would have the city's best interests in mind. That's why they moved out there. And, I wouldn't want my vote diluted by them, either.

Nothing personal. I think most Woodlanders would agree. There are much closer neighborhoods for Houston to annex that won't be as expensive to service.

[bachanon]

$1.04 Tax Rate! Woodlands residents ought to be BEGGING Houston to annex them to get at our $0.645 tax rate....and Houstonians ought to be telling them No.

As a Houstonian, I have no problem with the status quo, since Woodlands residents are paying us to leave them alone. However, if the issue became serious, I would be leery of annexing the Woodlands. Frankly, I don't think Woodlands/Houston voters would have the city's best interests in mind. That's why they moved out there. And, I wouldn't want my vote diluted by them, either.

Nothing personal. I think most Woodlanders would agree. There are much closer neighborhoods for Houston to annex that won't be as expensive to service.

i can't speak for the rest of the woodlands; however, i moved here because of the idea of the woodlands and to be near family in conroe and magnolia. i was torn between my friends and the culture inside the loop and the idealism (and affordability) i perceived the woodlands to be about. i'm not sure what reason(s) you assume people move out here. i'm not hoping for annexation or the status quo.