Houston Annexing Outside Territory

[Guest Plastic]

We've been discussing in another thread about how Houston annexes land outside it's boundaries.

Is this called for? The reason cities like Bellaire,South Houston, Spring Branch area,and such are all surrpunded by Houston is cause when those citites were originally founded Houston was basically inside The Loop. as time goes on Houston swallowed land from Downtown to CLear Lake Ciy. Kingwood has even become part of it. Smalller suburban cities liek Sugarland are getting in on it and annexing land outside of their boudaries.

SO the question is should Houston annex land outside it's territory. It's liek most american citites where the prinicipal city is considerably smaller and is englufed by mounds of smaller cities. Dallas and Los Angeles are prime exapmles. Ou can't travel around Greater LA without going through Pasedena,Burbank, Aneheim, Melrose, Santa Monica,Inglewood,Bel-Air,San Dimas, Lang Beach, Encino, or countless other citites in the vicinity.

So give you opinion, shoudl Housotn be allowed to annex more land against the will of the residents and why do you answer so. I think they shouldn;t. FOr the simple reson that Houston is large enough already, that's why. It reimends me of some medival kingdom trying to conquer as much land as possible not carrying about the natives. All this land under the control of one power can't be good..............for the citizens. Take curfew laws,minors outside Houston can comeout after midnight, if that changes they won't be able too. Houston had that ordinance on topless bars that drove all of them out. They say it's for taxes but I don't see the benifits.

WHat they ought to do is tax the surrounding citites who residents use Houston's freeways and infrastructure. The only reason I can see for annexing more property is that Houston might go from the 4th largest to the 3rd largest city.