Houston Population

[urbancowboy]

It's not really the annexation that is the problem, its the poor land use that has accompanied the annexation. Ideally, the annexation is a good the because it keeps the money in Houston, however its the low density, auto centric, and downright unsustainable development that is being built. Houston can grow to be over 1,000 square miles, but as long is the core is healthy, and the growth is well planned and sustainable than I don't see it as a problem. However, at the end of the day annexation now is better than the city bleeding money later. Sprawl does need to be addressed.

[lilyheights]

scarface, you're still using the SSC version of city success. This is not a race to see who has the biggest population. No one gets a trophy for being the biggest city, or even the biggest metro. The goal of local government officials is to adequately serve the ones that live here, as well as the ones who will be moving here.

The Dallas Morning News has an ongoing series about the problems that city is facing, and how to address them. The first paragraph addresses exactly what I am talking about.

The entire article is here.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2004/d...ernsector2.html

Now, this is not to pick on Dallas. I picked this article because I knew where to find it. But, it is a good example of what I am talking about. Plano, Richardson, and Addison, among other towns, receive huge amounts of property tax and sales tax from development within their borders, tax money that the City of Dallas does not get. Dallas needs that revenue, but it goes elsewhere. Richardson's telecom corridor funnels revenue to them, not Dallas. Without tax revenue, Dallas cannot hire more police, build more parks, repave streets and all of the other things that make the city great.

Now, look at Houston. If Houston had stopped annexing in the 1970s, Humble would have taken Deerbrook Mall and Kingwood. Spring might have incorporated, taking in Greenspoint Mall and all of the office buildings and hotels. The Energy Corridor may have become the City of West Houston. Clear Lake would have incorporated. Willowbrook Mall may have become Cypress.

Big deal, you say? The City of Houston gets millions of dollars of sales tax revenue from all of those malls. It gets tens of millions more in property taxes from the office buildings. If all of the wealthy suburbs incorporated and took the tax money with them, the City would have been left with the poor neighborhoods. Taxes would have to increase dramatically, or none of the city projects that cost money would get funded.

All of Houston's suburbs depend on Houston being healthy. There is a natural tension between the city and the burbs, but no intelligent suburbanite wants to see Houston die. It is the only reason those suburbs exist. The same logic applies to Dallas. However, each suburban town still competes with Dallas to take its businesses, corporations, stadiums and residents. It's the nature of the beast.

Again, no one cares about population or density. That is the popularity contest we engage in on these forums. City leaders are concerned about the non-sexy things like police, water and sewer systems and libraries and parks. And those things take money. And money comes from tax revenue. And, if a city cannot annex, revenue becomes harder to come by.

EDIT: Oh yeah, about the blobs. Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are all roughly the same size sprawling blobs. Only Houston can get tax revenue from its blob.

Agreed. One of our founding lessons growing up were my dad's stories about what happened in Cleveland. Unable to annex their suburbs, the city started to die. They stopped some bleeding by passing a city income tax, but that is of little help.

One might not like the idea of annexing, but it is the least of all evils, imo.

[westguy]

Poor land use exists in older cities too. What's the connection to annexation? I saw Dallas going through a slow death in the 90s when I lived there. The major employers were moving out to Frisco and Plano, and the population boom was too much for the infrastructure out there. Traffic was terrible, and water shortages were plentiful. Dallas had the infrastructure, but a poor tax base.

[713 To 214]

The reason taxes are excised from land owners of annexed property is because the city has to provide services to those areas. . .water, sewer, streets, infrastructure, etc. Those who keep stating this "retention of the tax base" argument are convieniently leaving that part out. There's no windfall income received by cities as a result of annexation (that would be taxation without representation). In some cases, it can be the contrary. It ends up costing the city more to maintain the land because the tax base is not proportionate.

[TheNiche]

The reaseon taxes are excised from land owners of annexed property is because the city has to provide services to those areas. . .water, sewer, streets, infrastructure, etc. Those who keep stating this "retention of the tax base" argument are convieniently leaving that part out. There's no windfall income received by cities as a result of annexation. In some cases, it can be the contrary. It ends up costing the city more to maintain the land because the tax base is not proportionate.

You're right about some suburban areas. For instance, annexing Barrett Station in northeast Harris County wouldn't pay off and should probably be avoided. The Woodlands, Cypress, Spring, and FM 1960, on the other hand...they'll pay for themselves and then some.

If CoH were to annex in a radial pattern all those lands that have not yet been claimed by other cities, they'd take in a tax base that is ON AVERAGE substantially wealthier than that of the present-day City of Houston. As such, city services and consistent regulatory policy could be viably provided to both Barrett Station AND The Woodlands with money left over to address inner-city issues.

[RedScare]

You're right about some suburban areas. For instance, annexing Barrett Station in northeast Harris County wouldn't pay off and should probably be avoided. The Woodlands, Cypress, Spring, and FM 1960, on the other hand...they'll pay for themselves and then some.

If CoH were to annex in a radial pattern all those lands that have not yet been claimed by other cities, they'd take in a tax base that is ON AVERAGE substantially wealthier than that of the present-day City of Houston. As such, city services and consistent regulatory policy could be viably provided to both Barrett Station AND The Woodlands with money left over to address inner-city issues.

This is not entirely correct. Cities do not necessarily want to annex residential areas, especially newly built ones, because they cost more to provide sevices to than they bring in tax revenue. Business and retail areas, on the other hand, are tax cash cows. These groups haul away their own trash, install their own infrastructure, oftentimes provide their own security, and pay commercial rates for water and sewer. Their buildings are worth more, and retail sales produce sales tax revenue.

Furthermore, while many suburban residents fight annexation, businesses often court it. A quick look at Houston's annexation patterns shows most area malls being annexed, as well as two established subdivisions, whose water and sewer bonds were largely paid off. As for future annexations, Woodlands residents have a ridiculously high sense of self worth. Houston does not want their high maintanance subdivision. It only wants the retail, office and hospital district.

[Guest Plastic]

I'm creating another thread, we'll use this to talk about population.

[scarface]

i just want to ask this before we take it to the other thread. I'll post the same topic there as well

If annexing has such great benefits to Houston as far as Tax and infrastructure, then Why do our roads look like they were in a nuclear holocaust? Why are there so many run down areas and buildings in Houston? All this proves to me is that the larger the territory is, the harder it is to manage. Houston's entire east side is proof enough!

[TheNiche]

i just want to ask this before we take it to the other thread. I'll post the same topic there as well

If annexing has such great benefits to Houston as far as Tax and infrastructure, then Why do our roads look like they were in a nuclear holocaust? Why are there so many run down areas and buildings in Houston? All this proves to me is that the larger the territory is, the harder it is to manage. Houston's entire east side is proof enough!

Perhaps the character of the east side has something to do with age...also, just to be clear, the City's east side stops just outside the Loop.

Also, run down areas and buildings (unless owned by the City) are not typically under their control. Poor people exist everywhere...you can't outlaw them. At least not officially.

Looking at one issue is probably not a very good way to assess the viability of annexation, either. There are many departments that compete for the City's scarce resources.

This is not entirely correct. Cities do not necessarily want to annex residential areas, especially newly built ones, because they cost more to provide sevices to than they bring in tax revenue. Business and retail areas, on the other hand, are tax cash cows. These groups haul away their own trash, install their own infrastructure, oftentimes provide their own security, and pay commercial rates for water and sewer. Their buildings are worth more, and retail sales produce sales tax revenue.

Furthermore, while many suburban residents fight annexation, businesses often court it. A quick look at Houston's annexation patterns shows most area malls being annexed, as well as two established subdivisions, whose water and sewer bonds were largely paid off. As for future annexations, Woodlands residents have a ridiculously high sense of self worth. Houston does not want their high maintanance subdivision. It only wants the retail, office and hospital district.

Dammit. I'd typed up a good response many days ago and had my internet freeze up right after posting it.

Bottom line was this: You're right that not every subdivision (especially newer ones) is ripe for the picking. But there are plenty of MUDs out there that are beyond the city limits that are. Many parts of The Woodlands, FM 1960/Champions area, Klein, Cypress, etc. would be good targets, for instance. I still suspect that my radial hypothesis would hold true, especially in the long run.

[lockmat]

Driving into work today, I was thinking one way we could compare our population growth to other cities is by tallying up the number of new schools that have been built. Of course it's not a direct reflection of real population growth b/c not everyone who moves here has kids, but I would think it'd still be an interesting comparison. I know it probably has many flaws, but still, just for curiosity sake.

That info probably isn't listed in some chart somewhere is it? I'd probably have to search for the info myself?

[houstonmacbro]

Driving into work today, I was thinking one way we could compare our population growth to other cities is by tallying up the number of new schools that have been built. Of course it's not a direct reflection of real population growth b/c not everyone who moves here has kids, but I would think it'd still be an interesting comparison. I know it probably has many flaws, but still, just for curiosity sake.

That info probably isn't listed in some chart somewhere is it? I'd probably have to search for the info myself?

Do the power companies keep a list of how their subscriber base is growing or shrinking. Maybe the telcos would be another good indicator.

[TheNiche]

Driving into work today, I was thinking one way we could compare our population growth to other cities is by tallying up the number of new schools that have been built. Of course it's not a direct reflection of real population growth b/c not everyone who moves here has kids, but I would think it'd still be an interesting comparison. I know it probably has many flaws, but still, just for curiosity sake.

That info probably isn't listed in some chart somewhere is it? I'd probably have to search for the info myself?

Google 'TEA' and sift through their data. Assembling the data in a useful way is tedious work, but I've done it before. And you are correct that it is a reasonably valid approach.

Just don't read too much into it. HISD has shrinking enrollment even thought the population base is growing, for instance, while a school district like Cy-Fair is going to have enrollment growth that is disproportionately high relative to its population base.

Do the power companies keep a list of how their subscriber base is growing or shrinking. Maybe the telcos would be another good indicator.

Good luck getting the data on your own, but I know that companies like Claritas are successful at it.

[houstonmacbro]

Google 'TEA' and sift through their data. Assembling the data in a useful way is tedious work, but I've done it before. And you are correct that it is a reasonably valid approach.

Just don't read too much into it. HISD has shrinking enrollment even thought the population base is growing, for instance, while a school district like Cy-Fair is going to have enrollment growth that is disproportionately high relative to its population base.

Good luck getting the data on your own, but I know that companies like Claritas are successful at it.

Naw, that stuff is way too geeky for me. I was just wondering more than anything.